U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–856 PDF 2012

ASSESSING COLLEGE DATA: HELPING TO 

PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION TO 

STUDENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AND TAXPAYERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Bob Goodlatte, Virginia 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Barrett Karr, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE TRAINING 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Richard L. Hanna, New York 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

George Miller, California 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 20, 2012 ..................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher Education 

and Workforce Training ............................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training ......................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cruz, Dr. Jose ́, vice president for higher education policy and practice, 

the Education Trust ...................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Fitzsimmons, Dr. Tracy, president, Shenandoah University, Winchester, 

VA ................................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28 

Hallmark, Dr. James, vice chancellor for academic affairs, Texas A&M 

University System ......................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Schneider, Dr. Mark, vice president, American Institutes for Research ..... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Additional Submissions: 

Dr. Fitzsimmons’ response to questions submitted for the record ............... 55 

Mrs. Foxx, questions submitted for the record to: 

Dr. Fitzsimmons ........................................................................................ 54 

Dr. Hallmark ............................................................................................. 58 

Dr. Schneider ............................................................................................. 61 

Dr. Hallmark’s response to questions submitted for the record ................... 59 

Dr. Schneider’s response to questions submitted for the record .................. 62 

(1) 

ASSESSING COLLEGE DATA: HELPING TO 

PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION TO 

STUDENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AND TAXPAYERS 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Foxx, Kline, Petri, Platts, Hinojosa, Andrews, Davis, and Altmire. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Adam Bennot, Press Assistant; James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and 

Member Services Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of 

Education and Human Services Policy; Cristin Datch, Professional 

Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel and Senior Advisor; Barrett Karr, Staff Director; Krisann Pearce, General 

Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Kate 

Ahlgren, Minority Investigative Counsel; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk; Meg Benner, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Kelly 

Broughan, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Levin, Minority New 

Media Press Assistant; Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; 

Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Michael Zola, Minority Senior Counsel. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Good morning. A quorum being present, the 

subcommittee will come to order. Welcome to the—to today’s subcommittee hearing. Thanks to our witnesses for joining us to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Higher Education Data Collection System. That is a mouthful, is it not? 

The 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act included 

several provisions aimed at improving transparency in higher education. For the first time institutions were required to make information about higher education pricing and financial aid more readily available to students and families. Additionally, the reauthorization encouraged colleges and universities to provide the federal 

government with more information about basic institutional characteristics such as demographics and graduation rates to help students make well-informed higher education choices. 
2 

At the time, then Ranking Member Buck McKeon said the legislation would help our nation’s higher education system ‘‘begin a 

transformation that will make it more accessible, affordable and accountable to consumers.’’ 

Without a doubt, the most recent reauthorization of the Higher 

Education Act started a process of enhancing higher education 

transparency. But as tuition and student debt continue to rise, and 

at an astonishing pace, it is clear more work must be done to help 

students and families make informed choices about their higher 

education options without overburdening institutions with counterproductive red tape. 

The Obama administration has recently suggested a need to 

make more data available to help perspective students and families 

better understand their post-secondary education options, as well 

as the financial commitment required by the schools they are considering. However, there is concern that newer additional data requirements could be duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome to 

higher education institutions. After all, the nation’s 7,000 post-secondary education institutions already dedicate thousands of hours 

and millions of dollars on data reporting each year. 

In the 2011-2012 academic year, institutions spent roughly 

800,000 and more than $28 million filling out surveys for just one 

of the Department of Education’s five main higher education databases. Experts predict the burden will grow to 850,000 hours and 

$31 million in the 2012-2013 school year. Again, these numbers reflect just a portion of the federal reporting requirements currently 

imposed on our higher education institutions. One can only assume 

the total investment in federal data collection is much greater. 

Adding insult to injury, institutions may also be asked to submit 

additional data to creditors and state leaders. This information 

often differs from the federal requirements, adding to the burden 

facing the nation’s post-secondary schools. 

As I previously stated, those in Washington have a responsibility 

to weigh carefully any federal action to ensure that such actions 

will not create greater costs for students in schools, particularly in 

these tough economic times. In the next Congress this committee 

will be responsible for leading the charge once again to reauthorize 

the Higher Education Act. Today’s hearing will allow us an opportunity to review the types of higher education data currently collected by the federal government, and discuss whether this information is useful to families, institutions and taxpayers. 

We are fortunate today to have several expert witnesses with us 

who can offer their perspectives on data reporting. And I expect 

their thoughts will inform future discussions on the reauthorization 

of the Higher Education Act. 

With that, I would like to now recognize the ranking member, 

Mr. Hinojosa, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Ms. Foxx follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

The 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act included several provisions 

aimed at improving transparency in higher education. For the first time, institutions were required to make information about higher education pricing and financial aid more readily available to students and families. Additionally, the reauthor-
3 

ization encouraged colleges and universities to provide the federal government with 

more information about basic institutional characteristics, such as demographics 

and graduation rates, to help students make well-informed higher education choices. 

At the time, then-Ranking Member Buck McKeon said the legislation would help 

our nation’s higher education system ‘‘begin a transformation that will make it more 

accessible, affordable, and accountable to consumers.’’ Without a doubt, the most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act started a process of enhancing 

higher education transparency. But as tuition continues to rise at an astonishing 

pace, it is clear more work must be done to help students and families make informed choices about their higher education options without overburdening institutions with counterproductive red tape. 

The Obama administration has recently suggested a need to make more data 

available to help prospective students and families better understand their postsecondary education options as well as the financial commitment required by the 

schools they’re considering. However, there is concern that new or additional data 

requirements could be duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome to higher education 

institutions. 

After all, the nation’s 7,000 postsecondary education institutions already dedicate 

thousands of hours and millions of dollars on data reporting each year. In the 2011- 

2012 academic year, institutions spent roughly 800,000 hours and more than $28 

million filling out surveys for just one of the Department of Education’s five main 

higher education databases. Experts predict the burden will grow to 850,000 hours 

and $31 million in the 2012-2013 school year. 

Again, these numbers reflect just a portion of the federal reporting requirements 

currently leveraged on our higher education institutions. One can only assume the 

total investment in federal data collection is much greater. Adding insult to injury, 

institutions may also be asked to submit additional data to accreditors and state 

leaders. This information often differs from the federal requirements, adding to the 

burden facing the nation’s postsecondary schools. 

As I have previously stated, those in Washington have a responsibility to weigh 

carefully any federal action to ensure that such actions will not create greater costs 

for students and schools, particularly in these tough economic times. In the next 

Congress, this committee will be responsible for leading the charge once again to 

reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Today’s hearing will allow us an opportunity 

to review the types of higher education data currently collected by the federal government and discuss whether this information is useful to families, institutions, and 

taxpayers. 

We are fortunate today to have several expert witnesses with us who can offer 

their perspectives on data reporting, and I expect their thoughts will inform future 

discussions on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. I appreciate everything that you have done to make this hearing possible. And I 

think it will be very, very productive; very informative. 

I would like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for 

joining us today to examine the usefulness and quality of the data 

the federal government currently collects from institutions of higher education. It is my hope that our expert panel will provide us 

with a better understanding of the data reported, how students and 

families and policymakers use the data, and key areas that could 

be improved when this committee reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. 

Data on post-secondary education are critical for a number of 

reasons. As the ranking member of this subcommittee, I believe 

that these data can help students and families to make informed 

decisions on which institution best meets their unique needs. Data 

on post-secondary education can provide colleges and universities 

the information they need to improve teaching and learning, the 

quality of education programs and student success, particularly for 

minority and low-income first generation college students and nontraditional students. 
4 

In my view, most policymakers find data on post-secondary education extremely valuable. Both federal and non-federal reporting 

and disclosure requirements, for example, are intended to hold colleges and universities accountable for rising tuition and the quality 

of educational programs. On behalf of students and families and 

taxpayers, we in Congress must ensure that the large financial investment that the federal government has made in higher education is making a difference for students and families. 

While we must be aware of the administrative burden that data 

collection and disclosure and reporting requirements impose on institutions of higher education, we must collect data that allow the 

federal government to monitor the use of Title IV financial aid dollars and empower students and families to make informed choices. 

In terms of the types of data that the federal government collects, I want to highlight one of the shortcomings of our current 

system. And I have said this for the 16 years that I have been in 

Congress. As you know, the federal government requires institutions to report college completion for first time, full-time students— 

only 14.6 percent of students enrolled in post-secondary coursework. 

As a result, current data do not reflect the increase of non-traditional students enrolling in our institutions. This is clearly a poor 

and inaccurate measure of how colleges and universities are serving all those students I enumerated. 

By collecting data on all students enrolled, including part-time 

students, colleges and universities and the federal government 

would have a more accurate picture of a student’s academic 

progress and success. Importantly, as the composition and needs of 

post-secondary education students change and become increasingly 

diverse, institutions must not abandon their commitment to educate greater numbers of low-income and minority students. 

In fact, I believe that we must do more to incentivize institutions 

that expand educational opportunity to some of our most disadvantaged student populations. The federal government has a responsibility to ask clear questions, to collect relevant data and to provide 

helpful information to students and families making the important 

decision of what college to attend. 

And in closing I want to say that we have a lot to learn. And 

current systems could be greatly improved to reflect the diversity 

of today’s higher education population. I hope today’s panel will inform this committee so we can better understand how to improve 

the data we collect and what information is most useful for all of 

our students and families. 

And with that, Madam Chair, I thank you for calling this congressional hearing. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rube ́n Hinojosa, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training 

Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. 

I would like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for joining us today 

to examine the usefulness and quality of the data the federal government currently 

collects from institutions of higher education. 

It is my hope that our expert panel will provide us with a better understanding 

of the data reported; how students, families and policymakers use the data; and key 
5 

areas that could be improved when this committee reauthorizes the Higher education Act. 

Data on postsecondary education are critical for a number of reasons. As the 

Ranking member of this subcommittee, I believe that these data can help students 

and families to make informed decisions on which institution best meets their 

unique needs. 

Data on postsecondary education can provide colleges and universities with the 

information they need to improve teaching and learning, the quality of educational 

programs, and student success, particularly for minority, low-income, first-generation college students, and non-traditional students. 

In my view, most policymakers find data on postsecondary education extremely 

valuable. Both federal and non-federal reporting and disclosure requirements, for 

example, are intended to hold colleges and universities accountable for rising tuition 

and the quality of educational programs. 

On behalf of students, families and taxpayers, we in Congress, must ensure that 

the large financial investments that the federal government has made in higher 

education are making a difference for students and families. 

While we must be aware of the administrative burden that data collection, and 

disclosure and reporting requirements impose on institutions of higher education, 

we must collect data that allows the federal government to monitor the use of Title 

IV financial aid dollars and empowers students and families to make informed 

choices. 

In terms of the types of data that the federal government collects, I want to highlight one of the shortcomings of our current system. 

As you know, the federal government requires institutions to report college completion for first-time, full-time students, only 14.6 percent of students enrolled in 

postsecondary coursework. As a result, current data do not reflect the increase of 

non-traditional students enrolling in our institutions. 

This is clearly a poor and inaccurate measure of how colleges and universities are 

serving all students. By collecting data on all students enrolled, including part-time 

students, colleges and universities and the federal government would have a more 

accurate picture of a student’s academic progress and success. 

Importantly, as the composition and needs of postsecondary students change and 

become increasingly diverse, institutions must not abandon their commitment to 

educate greater numbers of low-income and minority students. In fact, I believe that 

we must do more to incentivize institutions that expand educational opportunity to 

some of our most disadvantaged student populations. 

The Federal Government has a responsibility to ask clear questions, collect relevant data, and provide helpful information to students and families making the important decision of what college to attend. We have a lot to learn, and current systems could be greatly improved to reflect the diversity of today’s higher education 

population. 

I hope today’s panel will inform this Committee so we can better understand how 

to improve the data we collect, and what information is most useful for all of our 

students and families. 

With that, I yield back to Chairwoman Foxx and our distinguished panel of experts. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinojosa. I will 

make one comment on what you have said. This idea of traditional 

and non-traditional students, I think we are going to hear a lot 

more about today. And I have been mulling over that term traditional student. I think we have to get rid of that because it is obviously inappropriate. I—yesterday I was thinking about that, and I 

thought maybe we need to use the term old-fashioned student. I 

have tried to think of a word for it. But anyway, we will talk some 

more. But we certainly agree that that is an area where there is 

a tremendous problem. 

Pursuant to committee Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 
6 

for the record and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. Dr. Mark Schneider is vice president for Education, Human 

Development and Workforce at the American Institutes for Research. He served as the U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics 

from 2005 to 2008. He is also a visiting scholar at the American 

Enterprise Institute, and distinguished professor emeritus of political science at the State University of New York Stony Brook. 

Dr. James Hallmark is the vice chancellor for Academic Affairs 

of the Texas A&M University System. He began his career as an 

instructor of speech communication before proceeding through a series of positions at West Texas A&M, including dean of the Graduate School in research, federal relations coordinator and provost/ 

president for Academic Affairs. He became vice chancellor in 2012. 

Dr. Jose ́ Cruz is the vice president for Higher Education Policy 

and Practice at The Education Trust. He oversees the National Access to Success Initiative. Dr. Cruz is former vice president for Student Affairs at the University of Puerto Rico System. 

Dr. Tracy Fitzsimmons has been president of Shenandoah University since 2008. She holds a faculty appointment as professor of 

political science. Additionally she serves on the board of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in the 

Powhatan School. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. You will have 5 minutes to present 

your testimony. When you begin, the light in front of you will turn 

green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. And when 

your time is expired, the light will turn red, at which point I ask 

that you wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. After you 

have testified, members will each have 5 minutes to ask questions 

of the panel. 

I would now like—I now recognize Dr. Schneider for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK SCHNEIDER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

EDUCATION, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE WORKFORCE, 

AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you so much. It is my pleasure to be 

here. 

So, I just want to echo some of the comments that have already 

been made in the fact that the nation spends billions upon billions 

of dollars in our higher education system. And actually that is taxpayer money. When we think about the investment that students 

and their families make in this we are talking about hundreds of 

billions of dollars. It is poured into a system that we sometimes 

like to think about as the best in the world. 

We actually have many, many world-class universities. But we 

also have hundreds upon hundreds of colleges that are not doing 

the job in terms of educating students, graduating students and 

helping them find employment after they graduate, which by the 

way is over 90 percent of American students now say that is job 

number one for the colleges that they attend. 

So, we may not have the best university system in the world. But 

we certainly have the most expensive. According to OECD figures, 
7 

we spend more than any other OECD country and in fact twice as 

much as the OECD average. Despite all that money that we spend, 

we do not know which institutions are spending their money efficiently, and we do not know which universities are actually doing 

a good job in turning—in terms of returning—a higher return on 

the investment made by taxpayers or by students. 

So, one of the problems that we have is that our data system, 

again as referred to, is actually pretty bad. And I am referring specifically to IPEDS, which is the nation’s number one system of data 

collection for post-secondary systems of education. And actually 

IPEDS would have been a wonderful system in the 1950s, but it 

is not appropriate for today. 

It does not work for the students that we have. It does not work 

for the enrollment patterns that we have. It does not work for the 

institutions that we have. And again, the fixation on first-time, 

full-time students is just—it is just crazy. It makes no sense at all, 

given the world that we live in. 

So, I just want to quickly note some of the areas in which we are 

making some progress and the areas in which I think need to be 

addressed by this committee and the Congress going forward, and 

hopefully be addressed in the reauthorization of HEA. 

First of all, student success while in college. IPEDS measures far 

too few students, measures far too few aspects of student success 

while in college; for example, no measures on student progression. 

We are making progress fixing that. 

In particular I am talking about the NGA, the National Governors Association and Complete College America’s metrics which 

I believe, a, are much more encompassing and accurate than 

IPEDS; and b, show that in fact these data can be collected without 

a heavy burden on institutions. And again, I am very mindful that 

we want to be really careful about imposing additional burdens on 

campus. But I believe that CCA and NGA are showing the way forward on that. 

A second area that I think we really need to be much more careful about and thoughtful about is the labor market returns to graduation. Students in the nation need to know what fields, what 

schools, what programs are graduating students that are having 

success in the local labor market. 

This is critical information for the wellbeing of all of us. We need 

to be able to link the wage data with the Student Unit Record data. 

States can now do this. Over 30 states have now linked their Student Unit Records and unemployment insurance data, wage data. 

And most of this—most of those linkages were paid for by federal 

tax money. 

However, even though over 30 states can do this, the number of 

states that have made this data public is close to zero. So, one of 

the questions that I pose to all of us is what is the return on hundreds of millions of dollars of federal investment in these linked 

data, and why are not these data more in the public domain? This 

is a part of my life right now. But I think it is an important issue. 

And I think the third area that we really, really need a lot of 

work on is the cost to degree. How much does all this cost? We are 

very expensive. But our accounting systems are really rudimentary. 
8 

1 According to the OECD’s 2012 Education at A Glance, the United States spends around $29,000 per higher education student compared to the OECD average of $13,728. 

So, for example, taxpayer subsidies come in so many different 

forms, and we are not tracking them correctly. 

So, as a result, we can say something—a degree is cheap because 

the tuition is low. But when you take in all the taxpayer subsidies 

and you look, and you standardize by measure of success, the fact 

is that something that looks cheap could be really, real expensive. 

We need much, much better finance data. 

I believe that we could address some of these issues in the reauthorization of HEA. I think, for example, that IPEDS can and must 

be approved—improved. I think that this is on Congress actually 

to identify the things that it really wants because most of the 

things at IPEDS are the result of legislation. 

So, we need to figure out what still matters and what is still 

good. And I think we need to pay a lot of attention to ultimately 

the labor market success of students because I think that matters 

to all of us. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Mark Schneider, Vice President, 

American Institutes for Research 

The nation invests untold billions of taxpayer dollars in its higher education system. Students and their families pour even more into a system that often is thought 

of as ‘‘the best in the world.’’ While clearly the nation has the lion’s share of the 

world’s great universities, we also support hundreds upon hundreds of campuses 

that are not doing a good enough job of educating their students, graduating them, 

or helping them find jobs—which, according to a recent study by the Higher Education Research Institute of California, is the number 1 goal of today’s college students. 

Further, we have only rudimentary knowledge about how well all those billions 

are being spent. We do know that the United States spends more on higher education than any other nation in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),1 but we have only limited insights into which institutions are 

spending their money more efficiently than others and which are generating a higher return on investment for students and taxpayers. 

Our inability to document student and institutional success all too often traces 

back to limits in the nation’s primary system of higher education data collection, 

the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 

IPEDS would be a pretty good data system for the 1950s, but IPEDS is flawed— 

perhaps fatally so—given our current system of higher education. 

• When it comes to students, its coverage is too limited to represent the changing 

population of students enrolled in America’s colleges and universities. 

• When it comes to capturing different aspects of student success in college, 

IPEDS measures far too few. 

• When it comes to the crucial issue of how much higher education costs, IPEDS 

comes up short. Yes, we can use IPEDS data to tease out some rudimentary information about costs (thanks largely to the Delta Project started by Jane Wellman 

and now at the American Institutes for Research, where I work). But these insights 

don’t begin to meet our information needs. 

• And when it comes to measuring taxpayers’ return on the investment (ROI), we 

have to make some heroic assumptions to even approximate what taxpayers get in 

return for the vast sums they invest in colleges and universities. 

The nation can do better. 

With that in mind, I will sketch some of the metrics needed to better measure 

the performance of our colleges and universities. I’ll use four categories to keep it 

simple: 

• Student success while in college 

• Student learning outcomes 

• Student success in the labor market 

• Costs of degrees 
9 

I will zero in on what I see as some of the most promising developments in each 

category and discuss some of their benefits and costs. Then I’ll take on the issue 

of risk adjustment to allow comparisons across institutions that serve different student populations. I’ll end by comparing the present regulatory mentality of the US 

Department of Education’s approach to measuring student success in the labor market with a consumer information approach that I believe works better with the data 

we have. A consumer-oriented approach could make it easier to find and use not 

only data on employment outcomes, but other types of information on college performance as well. 

Student Success While in College 

Improving student success in college requires addressing three related processes: 

retention, progression, and completion. To earn a degree or a certificate, students 

have to stay enrolled (retention), they have to accumulate enough credits in a timely 

way (progression), and ultimately they have to finish school (graduation). We need 

far better measures of all three processes and we need to track far more students 

than we do now. 

As is well known, IPEDS concentrates on full-time, first-time beginning students. 

Unfortunately, this group represents fewer than half of all students in the country. 

And even for these students, IPEDS’ measures of student success are limited. 

While IPEDS does report first-year retention rates for both full-time and parttime students, it doesn’t tell us the rates at which students stay in school after their 

first year, it has no information on student progression, it doesn’t count most transfer students, it doesn’t calculate student success metrics for many groups of students that are central to the nation’s policy concerns (such as recipients of Pell 

grants) and has no information at all about student success after graduation. 

Slowly (and, we must hope, surely), we are making progress on fixing these problems. Most notably, the National Governors Association is leading states to endorse 

Complete College America’s (CCA) student success metrics, which will allow us to 

more accurately measure the success of far more students enrolled in colleges and 

universities than is possible with IPEDS. That’s because these metrics are based on 

student-level data (held by the states, not the federal government), data that are 

much finer grained and more accurate and that cover more students than IPEDS. 

One area of student success that CCA emphasizes is credit accumulation—an intermediate step between retention and completion. The aim of this measurement is 

to determine the proportion of undergraduates making steady academic progress 

during an academic year. Students can return semester-after-semester, but if they 

aren’t completing courses and earning credits at a pace that will allow them to get 

a bachelor’s degree within 6-8 years or an associate’s degree in around 4 or so years, 

many will likely never graduate. Capturing the percentage of students who are progressing fast enough toward their degree is one measure to which IPEDS needs pay 

far more attention. 

These kinds of student success measures are built on student-level data that most 

campuses and states should have and that can be compiled both relatively quickly 

and cheaply. Moreover, they can be produced now, without a long lead time. In turn, 

I believe that we can vastly improve our measurement of student success without 

imposing undue burden on states or campuses—something about which we all need 

to be mindful. 

Despite its importance, the CCA effort isn’t broad enough. Yes, over half the 

states in the nation now provide Complete College America with expanded metrics, 

but these cover only public institutions and currently the data are not reported at 

the campus or program level. 

Student Learning 

Higher education is about just that: educating students. However, the task of actually measuring how much college students have learned is just beginning to gain 

traction. 

Critics have long suspected that far too many colleges are not improving student 

skills. Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s book, Academically Adrift, elevated that 

concern from faculty office anecdotes to a headline issue. 

Arum and Roksa show that during their first two years of college, almost half of 

the students in their study did not improve in critical thinking, complex reasoning, 

or writing. Moreover, they show that students are distracted by socializing or working and that many colleges and universities put undergraduate learning close to the 

bottom of their priorities. 

One of the strengths of Academically Adrift is its empirical base. Rather than asserting that students are not learning, Arum and Roksa used the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to measure students’ cognitive skills. Among the growing 
10 

2For example see FALSE FRONTS? Behind Higher Education’s Voluntary Accountability Systems by Andrew P. Kelly and Chad Aldeman. Available at: http://www.educationsector.org/ 

usr—doc/False—Fronts.pdf and Assessing NESSE by Mark Schneider. Available at http:// 

www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/11/24/schneider 

number of college student assessments, the CLA has so far attracted the most attention; however, other assessments are available (such as the College Board’s Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency or ETS’ Proficiency Profile test) and more 

will likely be coming to market as policymakers demand measures of the value 

added of college education. 

My preference is for actual assessments of learning outcomes, such as CLA, not 

the less telling process-oriented studies such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement 

(CSSE). While some NSSE and CSSE questions are more valid on their face than 

others—for example, those on how often students wrote research papers or talked 

with faculty—overall NSSE and CSSE measure process, not outcomes, so their correlation with, say, graduation rates, is low.2

There are questions about the cost of CLA (and other such assessments) and questions about how students approach low-stakes tests. But even more important are 

questions about the role the federal government should play in college assessments. 

Within those constraints, Congress should continue to monitor the progress of efforts to evaluate how much students learn and how much college helps them build 

their skills. 

Student Success in the Labor Market 

While improving measures of student learning and student progress are important, ultimately we need to assess the extent to which labor markets are validating 

the level and usefulness of the skills college graduates possess. 

About half the nation’s states can now link student-level data that document each 

collegian’s experiences (including major field of study) to unemployment insurance 

records that can track post-graduation earnings. These data let us compare the returns on the investment students and taxpayers have made in, say, a student with 

a bachelor’s degree in sociology to the investments in a similar student who earned 

a bachelor’s degree in English literature from the same campus. 

Perhaps even more important, these linked data let us measure the returns to 

students with the same credential coming from different campuses. Students and 

policymakers can therefore compare how successful students with, say, a bachelor’s 

degree in materials sciences from one school match up to students with the same 

degree from another campus. While higher education is about many other things besides labor market success, for most students, their families, and state policy makers, higher education is the ultimate economic development strategy. So all need to 

know how students fare after they graduate. 

On September 18, 2012, I released data documenting the first-year earnings of 

graduates from programs across public institutions in Tennessee. These data document how much variation there is in the earning power of graduates from diverse 

fields of study—but the data also show how much variation there can be in the 

earnings of graduates from the same field of study across different institutions. 

As this graph from the report shows, there is nearly a $15,000 difference in firstyear earnings of bachelor’s degree holders in the same area of study, the health professions, from the University of Memphis versus graduates from the University of 

Tennessee. A smaller gap, but still around $7,000 in first-year earnings, separates 

graduates from the University of Tennessee in Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies from 

graduates from East Tennessee State. Note also that while Tennessee State graduates in Health professions lagged every other campus, their graduates in Multi/ 

Interdisciplinary Studies were the highest paid in the state, on average, for students 

with this major. This reinforces the need for information about specific programs— 

because, to repeat, success often is not uniform across programs or across institutions. 
11 

Tennessee data, not presented here, also show how well many students with technical two-year degrees from community colleges do in the job market—where often 

their wages exceed those of students earning a bachelor’s degree. And, like the chart 

above, the data also show how much earnings variation there is between graduates 

of different community colleges in the same field of study. 

Students and their families should have this information at their fingertips so 

they can make better informed decisions about where to enroll, what to major in, 

and how much debt they might comfortably take on relative to their likely earnings. 

About half the states have linked their student-level data with the unemployment 

insurance wage data (an effort supported by the federal State Longitudinal Data 

Systems grant program). But while many states have linked these data, few states 

have made those linked data known or easily available to the public, to individual 

campuses, or their state legislatures. 

I am working with six states—Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and 

Virginia—to get measures of the economic success of graduates into the public 

sphere. The Tennessee data and an accompanying report were released September 

18th. Arkansas data were released in August, and the Virginia data will appear in 

October. The data for Arkansas and Tennessee are easy to search and compare at 

www.collegemeasures.org and the other states’ data will be made available in the 

next few months. 

Cost of Degrees 

Finally, we need more accurate data on the cost of producing college degrees. And 

let’s not confuse cost with price here. 

Most consumers worry about price and know little about cost. If we go to Wal- Mart to buy a roll of paper towels and the price is $1.00, the fact it may cost 30 

cents to produce is rarely on our radar screens. Consumer ignorance of cost is even 

more prevalent when government subsidies cloud the difference between price (what 

we pay for something) and cost (what it costs to produce it). When we look at a 

highly subsidized service, such as higher education, the divergence between price 

and cost can be substantial. In short, a college diploma that carries a low price tag 

can cost far more than people realize. 

Any discussion of the cost of degrees must be attuned to their full cost, including 

taxpayer subsidies, and must be standardized by success (e.g., number of completions). Without taking both factors into account, taxpayers will be left with the false 

impression that a degree or certificate is cheap (because tuition price is low), even 

though it may be quite expensive when all costs are totaled. 

We know that costs are driven by such things as (a) the mix between upper division specialized courses versus lower division general education ones and (b) the mix 

of majors—after all, physics labs cost far more than language labs. And the mix of 

students and majors also may vary with each campus’ particular mission. True degree costs, then, must reflect all these variables. 

Many accounting issues also need to figure in any discussion of degree costs. For 

example, how should we allocate spending on research and administrative support? 

We have little information on capital costs, which in many campuses exceed operating costs. In short, the budgets of most higher education institutions are both 

sketchy and opaque, featuring little of the true grist needed to even start tabulating 
12 

3See Who Wins? Who Pays? The Economic Returns and Costs of a Bachelor’s Degree by Jorge 

Klor de Alva and Mark Schneider. Available at http://www.air.org/focus-area/education/ 

index.cfm?fa=viewContent&content—id=1286&id=6 4 NCES has identified a series of risk-factors. These include delayed enrollment, part-time attendance, financially independent, having dependents or children, single parent, and no High 

School diploma. See http://nces.ed.gov/das/epubs/ 

showtable.asp?pubnumber=19&tablenumber=C&dir=2002168 

what a student’s education costs taxpayers or how much campuses spend per degree. 

We also have no reliable way of estimating how much the tax exempt status of 

public and not-for-profit colleges and universities costs taxpayers. In more and more 

cities, for instance, conflicts are emerging between ‘‘town’’ and ‘‘gown’’ over payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS). Fiscally strapped municipalities where tax exempt 

institutions represent a significant share of their potential tax base (Boston and 

Providence come to mind here) are looking to campuses for some form of payment— 

but under current law payment is at the campus’ discretion. And tax exempt institutions pay no income or sales taxes—in contrast to for-profit education systems, for 

which corporate taxes are likely over 10% of revenues and sales taxes 1 or 2 percentage points. These exemptions are real taxpayer costs but are ‘‘off the books’’ so 

often go unnoticed. 

Given these, and other related issues, we have no way of knowing how much taxpayers are investing in degrees through direct appropriations and through subsidies. And without an accurate cost accounting, it’s hard to begin to assess the rate 

of return to taxpayers for their investment in higher education. I have been exploring this work with Jorge Klor de Alva, president of the Nexus Research and Policy 

Center. Last year we published a study of bachelor’s degrees and are now studying 

taxpayer returns on associate’s degrees.3

Risk Adjustment 

Higher education institutions in the United States vary widely in their missions, 

the students they serve, and the resources they have to educate those students. 

Many argue that a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to any metric is unfair to the institutions that are serving ‘‘nontraditional’’ students—the majority of students in postsecondary education today. To compare students’ college or labor market success in 

a highly selective not-for-profit college or public flagship school to that of students 

in a regional public four-year campus is clearly unfair. One solution to this problem 

is to establish risk-adjusted metrics that would allow us to compare individual campuses with their students’ characteristics taken into account. 

Risk-adjusted metrics are not a new idea. For example, hospital outcomes are 

often compared using measures that take into account their missions and clientele. 

It’s understood that patient populations in community hospitals vary greatly from 

those in, say, trauma centers. In higher education, we need some agreement on 

which student and campus characteristics need to be taken into account, perhaps 

starting with the risk factors that NCES has identified,4 but developing consensus 

around variables and methods requires more work. And we must take care so that 

risk adjustments don’t let poor-performing campuses off the hook. A campus with 

a 25 percent graduation rate might have a ‘‘risk-adjusted graduation rate’’ of 35 percent, but is 35 percent good enough? 

Consumer Information vs. Regulation 

Let’s assume that over time we develop better metrics to gauge the performance 

of our institutions of higher education. Then what? The U.S. Department of Education’s effort to regulate based on Gainful Employment shows the risks of getting 

too far ahead of the quality of the data. 

As is well known, a federal court ruled this past summer that the repayment 

ratio, one of the Department’s three Gainful Employment metrics, was ‘‘capricious 

and arbitrary’’ and that no research backed up its 35% threshold for imposing penalties on campuses. While the Department’s right to regulate on GE was upheld by 

the court, the current effort has once again hit a major stumbling block. 

The problem here, I believe, is that the Department has been so focused on Gainful Employment as a regulatory issue that it has neglected an equally crucial role— 

getting the information it has collected into the hands of students and their families 

in an understandable format. The huge effort expended on the three regulatory ratios (debt to earnings; debt to discretionary earnings; repayment rates) meant that 

too little was paid to what is arguably the most important piece of information in 

the entire GE data release in June of 2012: the average earnings of graduates of 

covered programs. Indeed, I have been told that there was serious discussion about 

not even releasing earnings data at all! 
13 

5Public institutions follow Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards, and 

private (for-profit and non-profit) institutions follow Financial Accounting Standards Board 

(FASB) standards. Each Board has a distinct mission and IHEs following these different standards report data differently, creating challenges in comparability. 

While the Department of Education has made some moves toward making its data 

more consumer friendly, its Gainful Employment efforts missed opportunities to be 

more useful to students. For example, in its June 2012 release of the Gainful Employment data, it had a column of data labeled ‘‘debt to earnings annual rate 

denomina.’’ In fact, this is the average earnings of graduates from thousands of programs throughout the nation. 

These earnings data contain valuable information not conveyed by the ratios. 

Here, for example, are the average earnings of graduates from four of the most commonly offered programs in California covered by the GE data. 

‘‘DEBT TO EARNINGS ANNUAL RATE DENOMINA’’ (AKA EARNINGS) 

FOR FOUR OF THE MOST COMMON PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA 

Program Average Minimum Maximum 

Cosmetology ........................................................................................................................ $11,119 $7,141 $16,912 

Message Therapy ................................................................................................................ $14,339 $8,306 $21,034 

Medical Assistant ............................................................................................................... $16,257 $8,951 $27,175 

Licensed Practical Nurse .................................................................................................... $38,838 $20,340 $68,871 

Earnings data reported in dollar terms convey information understandable by 

most people. Ratios don’t. Indeed, the regulatory-based ratios could easily lead to 

poor decisions: consider that for cosmetology, the average debt to income ratio was 

3.6%, lower than any of the other programs shown above, and the maximum ratio 

was 11.8%, below the 12% ‘‘trigger’’ of the GE regulations. Yet, graduates of cosmetology programs earned far less than graduates from other programs. 

Unfortunately, these simple dollar figures can be hard to find. In its downloaded 

data set, the Department, as noted, unhelpfully labeled them 

‘‘debttoearningsannualratedenomina.’’ And the entire Gainful Employment data 

base was released as a ‘‘flat file’’ consisting of almost 14,000 lines of data, so locating data for a program or comparing programs across institutions isn’t for the faint 

of heart. That’s why I created a far more user-friendly interface that can be found 

at http://collegemeasures.org/gainfulemployment/. 

Clearly, given the amount of taxpayer money invested in our colleges and universities, the government has an interest in making sure that the money is not spent 

frivolously. And the rate of return on both student and taxpayer investments in 

higher education matters a lot. The problem is that most of the data we have now 

are not precise enough to let us pick firm cut-off points fairly—for example, it is 

difficult to justify disqualifying a school with a repayment rate below 35% from participation in Title IV programs but not a program with a 35.1% repayment rate. 

However, if we view these data as informing consumer choice and seek to create 

reliable tools to allow students, their families, and their government representatives 

to view these data within a comparative framework, we can increase accountability 

by empowering consumer choice. 

I also believe that had we approached these data with a consumer information 

framework rather than a regulatory one, the Department might have been able to 

make progress resolving one of the most severe limitations on the current data: it 

could have expanded the coverage from just the for-profit sector to both public and 

not-for-profit institutions. 

Reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) 

Measurement of student success can be improved and IPEDS can and should be 

modernized. The reauthorization of HEOA provides such an opportunity. Some of 

the issues touched here may require more time to resolve and may need to be addressed outside of HEOA. (For example, some of IPEDS’ value in documenting higher education finance is limited due, at least in part, to shortcomings and differences 

in GASB and FASB).5 Assessing student learning is a step too far for Congress to 

undertake given the current state of the science of assessment and given legitimate 

concerns about the scope of federal intervention. 

However, we can and should improve our measurement of labor market outcomes, 

and Congress has the right and the obligation to ask what hundreds of millions of 

dollars in state longitudinal grants has bought us in terms of information that helps 
14 

students, their families, and taxpayers make the right to decisions about higher 

education. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Schneider. 

Dr. Hallmark? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES HALLMARK, VICE CHANCELLOR 

FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 

Mr. HALLMARK. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Hinojosa, I am 

honored—and I am James Hallmark and I am the vice chancellor 

for Academic Affairs in the Texas A&M University System. And we 

use data in the A&M system across a broad range of endeavors 

from P-12 to traditional analytics to student learning outcomes. I 

have long advocated data-centered decision making, although often 

universities base decisions more on anecdotes and innuendos. 

Furthermore, the research on human decision making indicates 

that we are more often likely to use data to confirm decisions we 

have already made, rather than base decisions on that data. An example in my system is that the students and parents often select 

Texas A&M University for the aggie ring and its traditions more 

so than the 92 persistence rate and retention rate of the institution. 

Still, we cannot make data-centered decisions without data. And 

universities are awash in data. The challenge is less in developing 

data—developing data than in transforming the existing data into 

usable information. And while doing so we most commonly focus on 

a handful of student success metrics and efficiency majors. 

Student success majors are items such as retention rates, time 

to graduation, graduation rates, number of graduates. For the public, understanding these terms is problematic in itself. I know that 

a retention rate refers to the percentage of first-time, full-time fall 

freshmen taking at least 12 hours returning the next fall. But I 

would assert that that nuance is not known or understood by consumers of the information. 

I have a college freshman daughter and even I found the language confusing as I helped her negotiate college admission and 

FAFSA this past year. So, I cannot imagine how overwhelming it 

might be for someone out there who is not familiar with the game. 

But even when understanding the terms, the data must be interpreted within context. For example, a university with a 48 percent, 

6-year graduation rate might be performing better than a university with a 68 percent, 6-year graduation rate, depending on the 

demographics of the students admitted. Institutions can also manipulate those metrics by denying admission to students with the 

greatest needs, even though doing so would not be in anyone’s best 

interest except the institution in reporting these metrics. 

Also, the measures may not adequately address the full range of 

student goals. Many community college students seek a foundation 

for transfer or a skill necessary for a specific job. Yet, when those 

students leave before graduation they are classified as failures in 

our data systems, even though the institution provided exactly 

what that student needed. 
15 

We must also be careful in what we measure and what we reward when considering efficiency metrics. For example, expenditure per full-time student equivalent is a common efficiency measure. And some view this as a measure of quality. 

In fact, U.S. News & World Report’s rankings put a 10 percent 

weight on that particular measure, arguing that generous first student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of 

programs and services. While others would argue the same metric 

is a measure of efficiency; that we must reduce expenditures to provide access and reduce student indebtedness. Another perspective 

is that this measure is a function of institution size, as larger institutions benefit from economies of scale. 

The point is that we have to be wise in interpreting this data. 

We must understand the variances in institutional mission and the 

size and its impact on these variables. 

In A&M Systems analytics project, all of our institutions have 

identified what we call stretch goals regarding expenditures. Some 

of our institutions seek to increase their expenditure per full time 

student equivalent, actually increase it because of needed additions 

in student support or an expanding, changing mission, while other 

A&M System institutions seek to lower their expenditure levels for 

efficiencies. 

Now, I will close with some comments on the A&M Systems data 

project. And as well I want to mention the Voluntary System of Accountability. In the A&M System we have set forth as our first step 

in this project to prepare teachers differently, to transform how we 

are preparing teachers, educational administrators, focus on STEM 

education and our research across the broad spectrum of education. 

But it is not enough to say that we are transforming public education. We have specific measures to assess our progress and hold 

ourselves accountable. 

Now, once a student enters an A&M System institution we follow 

their progress to meet our student success metrics, and our metrics 

are common to those used across the country. But in addition we 

track what we call governance metrics outcome based funding 

metrics and excellence metrics. And the key data in each category 

is accompanied by stretch goals with targets for 2015 and 2020. 

Finally, the A&M system is addressing what most projects are 

not, and that is student learning outcomes. It is tricky, but we are 

doing it anyway. It is not enough to graduate students. We are collecting data to know if we adequately prepare our graduates for the 

next stage in their life. 

Finally, I only have 20 seconds, but I want to mention the Voluntary System of Accountability. I do not know of any better national collaboration to standardize data and make it understandable. It is a continuous tweaking process. But it is an excellent 

model. 

VSA is sponsored by APLU and ASCU and eight of the 11 universities in the A&M System participate in VSA. And much like 

the A&M System’s effort, the VSA is completely transparent with 

links to the VSA data on the front page of every VSA member’s 

Web site. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Hallmark follows:] 
16 

Prepared Statement of Dr. James Hallmark, Vice Chancellor for 

Academic Affairs, Texas A&M University System 

Good morning. I’m James Hallmark, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for the 

Texas A&M University System (the A&M System). The A&M System consists of 

nearly 125,000 students spread across our 11 universities and our Health Science 

Center. In addition, we count 7 state agencies among our number, all aligned to 

serve the education, research, and service needs of Texans. 

I am particularly pleased to visit with you about university data projects, and 

more importantly using data to provide valuable information to students, parents, 

institutions, taxpayers, and elected officials. 

I have long advocated data-centered decision making. Taxpayers, regents, lawmakers, parents, and students all need data to make good choices with their money, 

their policies, and their futures. And while every university leader asserts decisions 

are based on data, my experience has been that university decisions are most often 

based on anecdotes and innuendos. A good story often outweighs a hundred pages 

of statistics indicating otherwise. And certainly the research on human decision 

making indicates we typically use data to confirm decisions we have already made. 

For example, I am confident parents and students select Texas A&M University for 

the Aggie ring and traditions more so than for the 92% persistence rate. 

Though we will continue to be influenced by non-data based factors in making 

choices, we cannot make data-centered decisions without usable data. 

Universities have long been awash in data. The challenge is generally less in developing data than in transforming the existing data into forms understandable to 

the public and decision makers. Only then can we understand the data and use it, 

and also recognize any gaps in our existing data. 

The A&M System has embarked on an ambitious data project across a broad 

range of endeavors—literally everything from PK-12 to traditional analytics to student learning outcomes—with a goal of being accountable to the public and transparent in that accountability. We employ data to help us more wisely use finite resources with which we are blessed to serve our students and our state. Significantly, 

this project has the full support of Chancellor John Sharp and the chair of the Committee on Academic and Student Affairs, Regent Elaine Mendoza, and the project 

is led by a vice chancellor, myself. This is important as it requires powerful and influential leadership to guide a major data project from infancy to maturity. We 

would not be successful in the A&M System without it. 

I will provide what I hope are useful insights into the use of data in aiding constituent decisions, while also providing information on the A&M System’s project. 

I will also comment briefly on the ‘‘VSA’’ project (Voluntary System of Accountability) a comprehensive national effort using data to aid students and parents in 

making choices. I will, of course, be happy to address any of these matters during 

your questions. 

Accountability in higher education typically focuses on a handful of metrics, such 

as persistence rates, time to degree, graduation rates, and number of graduates. It 

may be useful to reference these as ‘‘student success metrics.’’ These are reasonable 

measures, and are important. According to the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, only about 30% of 8th graders will obtain a higher 

education credential in 11 years (the equivalent of a six-year graduation rate). In 

Texas, only about 20% of 8th graders have a higher education credential in 11 

years. The deficiency in Texas is even more alarming for African-Americans (11.4%) 

and Hispanics (11.6%). Simply, for the good of our society we must be held accountable for moving the needle on these metrics. We can only move the needle if we 

measure and track the information and systematically apply the findings as part of 

our decisions on how we structure our institutions and processes. 

For the public, the greatest challenge in using these student success metrics may 

be in understanding the language. In higher education, we know that a retention 

rate refers to a specific measure, but I would assert the term is not meaningful to 

consumers. The retention rate references first time full time cohorts of freshmen entering the institution in a fall semester who remain enrolled at the same institution 

the following year. This is a useful and important measure for lawmakers, university administrators, and regents, but for first generation students and their parents 

the language and utility of the measure is not readily apparent and even confusing. 

Personally, I am a higher education professional, and yet I found—as my college 

freshmen daughter negotiated college admission and FAFSA—my knowledge of the 

game had its limits. 

Beyond understanding the key terms, the data cannot—or at least should not— 

be interpreted without context. For example, a superficial understanding would conclude a university with a 68% six-year graduation rate is performing better than 
17 

a university with a 48% six-year graduation rate. However, the reverse may be true. 

The 68% university may be underperforming based on the academic preparedness 

and socio-economic status of its incoming students, while the 48% university may 

be over-performing based on the input characteristics. Allow me to explain: if an institution is primarily drawing its students from white non-Hispanic households, 

where both parents are college graduates, and where few are Pell eligible, a 68% 

six-year graduation rate is poor. Meanwhile, an institution drawing primarily from 

underrepresented populations with a high percentage Pell eligible and mostly first 

generation, a 48% six-year graduation rate is remarkable. Lawmakers, regents, parents must understand the different missions of these institutions in interpreting 

this data. 

It is also important to prevent institutions from ‘‘gaming’’ the metric. For example, institutions can artificially improve persistence, retention and graduation rates 

by truncating the freshman class, eliminating those students with the greatest 

needs. An access oriented institution could choose to limit admission to those with 

an ACT score (or equivalent) of 20 or higher and dramatically increase retention, 

persistence, and graduation rates, even though doing so may not be in the best interests of the community, the region, or the nation. 

It should also be noted that the standard measures for student success do not adequately address the full range of goals of all students. This is most evident in community colleges where a significant number of students seek a foundation for transfer or a skill necessary for a specific job opportunity. Current data reporting metrics 

often underreport the community college’s success, even though the institution provided what the students needed, because common data metrics only report retention 

and graduate rates at the students’ first institution. Similarly, one institution in the 

A&M System is a special purpose institution focused on maritime disciplines. A student at Texas A&M University at Galveston (TAMUG) who chooses to major in 

something other than maritime will transfer to Texas A&M University and is reflected in TAMUG’s data system as a ‘‘failure,’’ even though that student may graduate and become the world’s next great agricultural engineer. Again, the shortcomings of the standard measures do not account for the progress and success of 

many students. (The Voluntary System of Accountability addresses this challenge 

by tracking students across any institution.) 

Moving from a discussion of metrics associates with student progression to a discussion of efficiency measures, higher education, like all facets of society, must do 

more with less. We must be publicly accountable to those who are providing resources, whether that source is public funding, tuition and fee dollars, or philanthropy. We must demonstrate that we are being efficient with those resources, that 

we are investing our resources not in frivolous activities—however that may be defined—but in activities targeting appropriate service to the education, research, and 

service needs of our students and our service area. 

Much like student success metrics, efficiency measures must be interpreted with 

caution. For example, ‘‘expenditure per full time student equivalent’’ is a common 

measure of efficiency that is also viewed by some as a measure of quality. (And to 

revisit the concern mentioned above, it is also a measure that may not immediately 

be understood by consumers.) Some view this measure as a means of assessing quality. For example, the ubiquitous U.S. News and World Report ranking places a 10% 

weight on their version of this measure, arguing that ‘‘generous per-student spending indicates that a college can offer a wide variety of programs and services.’’ Others may use this same metric as a measure of efficiency, arguing that we must reduce expenditures to provide access and reduce student indebtedness. Furthermore, 

expenditure per full time student equivalent may be more a function of an institution’s size than anything else, as larger institutions benefit from economies of scale. 

The issue I seek to address is not to avoid data reporting or accountability related 

to efficiency, but rather to use the information wisely, understanding the variances 

in institutional mission and size and its impact on the variable. In the A&M System’s analytics project, our institutions have identified ‘‘stretch goals’’ for selected 

metrics, including expenditures per full time student equivalent. Some of our institutions seek to increase their expenditure per full time student equivalent to expand 

student resources in support of student success or in pursuit of a changing mission 

such as ‘‘downward expansion’’ from an upper-level only institution into a four-year 

institution. Other institutions who may already offer a full range of services have 

stretch goals to lower their expenditure levels as they are seeking efficiencies within 

their systems. 

My final set of comments will focus on a more complete overview of the A&M System’s data project. First, we firmly believe we have a responsibility to improve public education (PK-12) in the state of Texas. No other entity in Texas produces more 

teachers than the A&M System while supporting innovation and leadership through 
18 

groundbreaking research. We at the A&M System have an obligation to continue to 

improve, to transform how we prepare teachers, to better prepare educational administrative leaders to support and lead these transformations, to renew our focus 

on STEM education particularly in the primary grades, and to expand the research 

we conduct across the broad spectrum of education. 

But it isn’t enough to say we are going to transform public education through our 

focus. We have specific metrics and targets that tell us how well we are performing 

in preparing and supporting teachers, in preparing and supporting educational administrative leaders, in improving performance in STEM disciplines, and in education research. These data are essential in helping us transform public education. 

Once the student enters an A&M System university, we begin to measure their 

progress via analytics. We collect and analyze data for typical metrics used by universities across the country (detailed breakdowns of enrollment trends, for example, 

such that I can tell you how many Hispanic females from Coleman county are majoring in a STEM discipline at the A&M System’s Tarleton State University campus—the answer is 2). We track about 50 variables in this manner, with significant 

‘‘drill down’’ capability to aid students, parents, regents, and lawmakers in decision 

making. With this data, students and parents can made decisions on the likelihood 

of quick progression to graduation, or regents can track trends in research expenditures, among other possibilities. 

We have also organized our data to reflect specific interests within Texas. One 

set of data focuses on ‘‘Governance,’’ data our Board of Regents has identified as 

central to their decision making task. Another set of data focuses on ‘‘Outcomes 

Based Funding,’’ data the state of Texas has proposed for influencing institutions’ 

state funding. Yet another set of data focuses on ‘‘Excellence,’’ data that tracks how 

each institution is moving toward better fulfilling its mission. Key data in each category is accompanied by stretch goals, targets for 2015 and 2020. 

Finally, within the A&M System’s paradigm, we are addressing what most 

projects are not—student learning. Too often data projects neglect to systematically 

measure the knowledge and skills of the students who graduate from our institutions. It is not enough to graduate students. Instead, we must collect evidence to 

know we are adequately preparing our graduates for the next stage in their life, 

whether that is graduate school, professional school, or the workforce. 

At the A&M System, we are collecting data to demonstrate a value added to the 

student via their encounter with our universities. Our identified outcomes are not 

unique, relying heavily on national models, such as the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ ‘‘Essential Learning Outcomes’’ within the ‘‘LEAP’’ initiative. 

These models provided a foundation for us to choose to hold ourselves accountable 

that our graduates will communicate well, have outstanding critical thinking skills, 

be ethical decision makers and engage responsibly in society, have a global perspective and an appreciation for cultural diversity, problem solve well, integrate the 

broad knowledge obtained through their undergraduate experience, and possess the 

knowledge specific to their discipline of study. We are entering into a data management and reporting project assessing each of these learning outcomes. 

I will close with a brief reference to the VSA—the ‘‘Voluntary System of Accountability’’—mentioned earlier. The VSA was developed in 2007 to better demonstrate 

public university accountability and transparency, particularly in the areas of access, cost, student progress, and student outcomes. The VSA is sponsored by the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and the American Association of 

State Colleges and Universities and includes 60% of all public 4-year universities. 

Eight of the 11 universities in the Texas A&M University System participate in 

the VSA and publicly report a common set of data on the VSA College Portrait. The 

VSA College Portrait provides common, understandable and useful data for students, families, state officials, policy makers, and accreditors. As an example of national collaboration to provide common, understandable and useful data, I know of 

no better model. And much like the A&M System’s effort, the VSA is completely 

transparent, with links to the VSA data on the front page of every VSA’s member’s 

website. 

Ultimately, it is up to the student to succeed, and many in higher education 

blanch at being held accountable for the behaviors of 18 year olds. Regardless, given 

the resources devoted to higher education and the demands and needs of society for 

higher education to produce contributing members of society, accountability is unavoidable. The wise approach to accountability assures we are being accountable for 

the right stuff and interpreting the data wisely. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Cruz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 
19 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSE ́ CRUZ, VICE PRESIDENT FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND PRACTICE, THE EDUCATION 

TRUST 

Mr. CRUZ. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 

Hinojosa. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this 

morning. 

My name is Jose ́ Cruz. I am the vice president for Higher Education Policy and Practice at The Education Trust. And I am a 

former vice president of Student Affairs at the University of Puerto 

Rico System. 

Going to college has always been a major financial commitment. 

But given the cost of college today, the consequences of that decision have grown exponentially. Yet, access to quality, relevant information to inform that decision is grossly limited. Fortunately, 

current federal databases provide a foundation upon which to build 

a data system that will not only better inform parents and students, but also help decision makers develop effective policies that 

benefit students, and help institutions operate more efficiently. 

One such database is the National Student Loan Data System, 

NSLDS. The NSLDS compiles data on federal student loans, but it 

has two major shortcomings. First, it does not compile data on private student loans. 

And second, it does not include a flag to indicate whether a particular student has completed his or her program of study. By expanding this data system to include information on private student 

loans, and a completion indicator, NSLDS could provide much more 

useful information about the debt levels and types of debts incurred by student completers and non-completers alike. 

The main source for post-secondary educational data is the Integrated Post-Secondary Education System, IPEDS. IPEDS has a 

treasure trove of information, but the usefulness of this information is limited because the data is incomplete. As Ranking Member 

Hinojosa stated previously, IPEDS does not provide graduation 

rates for anyone but first time, full time students. And the information it does provide on graduation rates of 2-year institutions is significantly limited. 

IPEDS also does not provide graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients, nor does it provide graduation rates for Stafford Loan borrowers. And it does not provide information on student job placement rates and earnings. 

Collecting and reporting these few additional pieces of information would go a long way toward ensuring that students and their 

families, as well as the institutions themselves, have a true picture 

of an institution’s ability to support all, not just some, of their students through graduation. 

Now, I know that when we talk about additional reporting, whatever the context, the issue of burden on the organizations tasked 

with that reporting always arises, and rightfully so. But we cannot 

let the fact that some effort is required to be the sole determinant 

in the conversation. 

If reporting arms students with the information they need to 

make good decisions, and provides institutions insight into how 

they are doing and where they need to improve, then it is hard to 
20 

make the argument that such reporting is too burdensome. Rather, 

it is indispensable. 

It is true that a lot of data already exists in federal databases, 

state longitudinal databases, state longitudinal data systems and 

system institutional research offices. So, we should use it to full effect. But we need someone to gather and validate the quality of 

such data and make it available in a simple and usable format for 

students, policymakers and institutional leaders to benefit from it. 

And this someone can and should be the federal government. 

The fact is that we know that current reporting can be enhanced 

without overly burdening those doing the reporting. Dr. Hallmark 

has talked about the Voluntary System of Accountability. And Dr. 

Schneider talked about the Complete College America and NGA 

work in this area. 

And we have also been working with some other systems and institutions in the past 5 years in a different initiative called the Access to Success Initiative where 22 public higher education systems 

with 312 campuses serving over 3.5 million students have developed a set of common definitions as well as metrics, protocols and 

tools to track overall enrollment and completion rates for the parttime, for the transfer and for the low-income students that are currently missing from IPEDS. And they have been voluntarily reporting this data for the past 5 years. 

So, in closing, I would say that we have no time to waste. College 

tuition and fees are growing almost twice as fast as health care 

costs and about four and a half times as fast as inflation. And student loan debt now exceeds $1 trillion, and outpaces credit card 

debt in this country. 

This at a time when almost half of our students in our K-12 

schools are low-income, and when our youngest generation is just 

barely better educated than their parents. Data transparency for 

students, parents, policymakers and institutional leaders of higher 

education has never been more critical. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Cruz follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Dr. Cruz. 

Dr. Fitzsimmons, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 
27 

STATEMENT OF DR. TRACY FITZSIMMONS, PRESIDENT, 

SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. Good morning. I am so pleased to be here with 

you today. 

I am president of Shenandoah University. We are located 70 

miles to the west of here in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley in 

Winchester. We educate 4,000 students every year; half undergraduate, half graduate. 

We are not a liberal arts institution. We are not a professional 

institution. We have a foot sort of firmly in both camps. So, we are 

concerned about educating broadly, but also about educating our 

students for a career. 

I am here representing Shenandoah University and NAICU. I am 

also here as a PhD in political science, which means I believe deeply in data, and that good data helps inform great discussions and 

dialogue in the classroom and here in Congress. But I hope as you 

move forward in these discussions about data and higher education 

that you will think about data with the following questions. 

First is, do we really need more data? I brought with me a 

stack—a representative stack of all the information that is available to the general public on just one institution, mine, Shenandoah University. Anyone in the public can read all of this. It has 

got financial information, student demographic information. It has 

got average class size and so many other things. We have got tons 

of data out there. Let us make sure that we are using it first. 

If you want to add more layers, could you please take away some, 

because the administrative burden is tremendous. It is worth it if 

the information is well used by taxpayers and students. But it is 

a tremendous financial burden. That was the second area, the burden. 

The third area is if you are going to move towards a common 

dataset, if you are going to push taxpayers and students to focus 

on one set of numbers that is generated centrally by the federal 

government, I hope you will be aware that you could be inadvertently creating a situation in which it would push colleges and universities not to take a bet on high-risk students, on low-income students. 

Just this fall at Shenandoah University when we welcomed our 

freshmen class, one of our students came to us not from his home, 

but from a homeless shelter; straight from the homeless shelter to 

the dorms at Shenandoah University. He does not have family support. He does not have a family history of college. He is not a great 

bet to graduate. But he deserves a chance. 

If you would force me to be compared all the time against other 

colleges and universities only focused on graduation rates, retention rates, I might not have been able to accept him. But he deserves an opportunity. We want to make sure not to create a common dataset that perversely leads us to exclude those who perhaps 

need college the most. 

Next, students I find are actually really interested in the intangible. I asked my students in preparation for today, what is it that 

drove you to choose a college? What did you think about? What 

kind of data? 
28 

They wanted to know do we have the majors that they were looking at, that they were considering. Will we help them prepare for 

certain jobs? But they also have other questions. 

Some students are looking for a highly Christian institution. 

Some want an institution that is not religious at all. Some want 

a left-leaning or right-leaning institution. Some want a place that 

is very environmentally focused. Others want to know that as a 

home-schooled high school student that they will feel at home at 

that institution. 

It is very much for some of them, for many of them about the 

fit. Does it feel right? Will these faculty members motivate me, 

stand by me until graduation? That is going to be really hard to 

measure in a common dataset. 

I would also like to remind you that we have an incredible peer 

review accreditation system in this country. In terms of accountability, both in terms of academic quality and also financial responsibility we are harder on each other than anyone could possibly be 

on us. 

And finally, I would like to urge you to let the market bear some 

of the burden. We exist in this wonderful free and fair country politically and economically. And there is room for the market to do 

work here as well. I see it every day. 

We know the faculty members that are not keeping current on 

the information, that are not offering courses students want or are 

not great engaging teachers. Students vote with their feet. They do 

not sign up for those classes. 

The same thing happens for colleges and universities. If you are 

not offering the majors that students are looking for, if you are not 

paying attention to students’ needs and parents and taxpayers as 

well, they will vote with their feet. They will not apply. They will 

not come to our institutions. 

There is a lot of data available. I am happy to create more data 

for you to work with you on it if it is useful to the taxpayers and 

to the students. 

I would end by saying I have the pleasure every day of working 

with the students that you help, the ones who could not go to 

school if it were not for your financial support. And I am grateful 

on behalf of those students, and all those across the country. But 

as you think of data, I also hope that you will use data, create data 

in ways that will urge American higher education to deepen, not 

dampen our commitment to provide ability and opportunity to students across our country, the many, many different kinds of students that exist. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Fitzsimmons follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Tracy Fitzsimmons, President, 

Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA 

Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate having the opportunity to appear today to discuss higher education 

data issues. I am Tracy Fitzsimmons and I am president of Shenandoah University, 

located 70 miles to the west of Washington D.C., in Winchester, Virginia—the top 

of the beautiful Shenandoah Valley. 

Shenandoah University educates 4,000 students in its undergraduate, master’s 

and professional doctoral programs. Shenandoah is not a liberal arts institution, nor 

is it a pure professional school. Rather, Shenandoah offers its students the broad 

education necessary to be active and informed citizens, while also training those stu-
29 

dents for a specific career. The 68 degree programs at Shenandoah are housed 

across six schools: Business, Conservatory, Education & Human Development, Arts 

& Sciences, Pharmacy, and Health Professions. 

In real-life terms, Shenandoah educates the students who will be the police officers and teachers and accountants of our communities; the nurses and physical 

therapists who will care for us as we age; the environmentalists and entrepreneurs 

who will compel our country to do more and better; and the performers of Broadway 

or the Kennedy Center who will touch our souls with their artistic performances. 

Today, I represent not only Shenandoah University, but also the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), a public policy association 

for non-profit higher education that represents more than 960 private, non-profit 

colleges and universities and more than 70 specialized independent college associations. NAICU has long been involved with issues related to the collection and use 

of data. 

My thanks to you for holding this hearing. Having a PhD in political science, I 

think good data helps inform good decisions—both in the classroom and in Congress. 

And I think that government has contributed to quality data across American higher education. However, the question of data—what the government should collect, 

and how it should collect and use it—is central to education policy. As you consider 

this question, I urge you to keep in mind several questions about additional levels 

and means of federal data collection: 

1. Will the benefits of new data requirements outweigh the costs? 

There are already reams of data easily available to the public to help them make 

decisions about how to assess colleges in the higher education sector. 

For example, many data discussions involve longitudinal data systems. These systems are being built in the belief that tracking individuals throughout their schooling and on through the workforce can assist in developing more successful educational and employment strategies. At the same time, they raise serious concerns 

about student privacy—a longstanding concern of NAICU. In addition, we believe 

that some current information is collected without a clear policy purpose, retained 

long after its purpose has expired, and used for unintended purposes. Too much 

data, or out-of-date data, only serves to confuse or mislead those who were the intended beneficiaries. 

Frequently, data issues center on the large and growing list of disclosures that 

institutions are required to provide. Like regulatory kudzu, it seems that every new 

problem gets a new proposed disclosure, but none of the old ones ever go away. We 

are concerned that such excessive requirements place a great administrative burden 

on institutions—a burden that I and other presidents are certainly willing to bear 

if it serves a productive purpose. I will address this issue later in my testimony. 

For now, however, you have asked me to consider whether it is possible and costeffective to identify a limited set of data upon which everyone can rely in evaluating 

institutions? Can policy gains be made while also saving costs in red-tape and 

money to our universities, to our taxpayers and to our students? 

2. In the effort to provide students, parents and taxpayers more data, will you implement measures that make it more difficult for colleges to give at-risk students 

a chance? 

Using retention rates and graduation rates as a be-all, end-all measure of institutional worth could lead to this result. The best way for any college or university to 

increase its graduation rate is to enroll traditional, high-achieving students—you 

know to whom I refer: the 18 year-olds who have stable families, attended the best 

high schools, flew through high school with an A average, and have significant financial means. I, and other presidents, certainly want those students to succeed in 

college—and the odds are in their favor. But many of us also want students from 

the broad spectrum that makes up America to be able to have a chance at college 

* * * the 25 year-old single mother, the veteran suffering from PTSD, the C+ student who is bright and motivated but struggled to make good grades in high school 

because he was working two jobs to help pay the rent. Shenandoah, and many other 

schools, believe those students also deserve the opportunity to go to college. But if 

Congress takes measures to position graduation rates as the key indicator of institutional value, then you will force my colleagues and I to narrow the range of applicants we accept. Just this fall at Shenandoah, we drove two hours away to pick up 

one of our incoming freshmen students from a homeless shelter—his family had lost 

their home earlier this summer—and Shenandoah has committed to providing significant levels of financial support to him. But Federal rankings based on graduation rates might have led us to think twice. We also welcomed into our freshman 

class a student who is the youngest of six children, the first in his family to go to 
30 

college, from a household where Spanish is the primary language. Both of these 

young men had at least a B average in high school—and I believe in them—but I 

also know that both will face significant challenges in moving through college to 

graduation. But they deserve a chance at higher education. If you force colleges to 

play the graduation numbers game, we will think twice about admitting students 

who are not the absolutely best-bet to graduate. 

Furthermore, are you assured of choosing the right measurements? Right now, for 

example, there is much attention paid to retention and graduation rates. Yet in 

fields such as nursing or physician assistant studies, completion of the degree program is not the key measure—the crucial measurement is how many of the students 

completing the program pass their board exams, because without passing they cannot practice in their chosen field. 

3. Will your use of data push higher education away from independent thought and 

creative problem-solving toward equating value only with financial return? 

A sound college education prepares our graduates not only to enter the workforce, 

but it also provides them with a deeper understanding of the world around them. 

Focusing on employment earnings as the primary measure of value diminishes the 

deeper benefits of education, reduces the flexibility to address new educational 

needs, and ignores the very real contributions to society by those who choose to pursue lower paid service occupations. Right now, in Virginia, the State Council of 

Higher Education is preparing to release to the public a website that lists Virginia’s 

public and private colleges according to how much money their graduates earn 18 

months and five years after graduation. While I am pleased that my institution 

comes out high on the chart, there are many institutions of high educational quality 

that end up at the bottom of this list. I am vehemently opposed to creating and 

pushing such data sets to students and parents. What is the message? That those 

colleges who educate future hedge fund managers and physicians are somehow more 

valuable than those who educate our future ministers, middle managers, teachers 

and part-time-worker-stay-at-home-mothers? 

4. Will your use of data shift the historical focus of need-based aid to students to 

a focus on institutional aid instead? 

If institution-based metrics such as graduation rates or alumni earnings are used 

to assign federal ‘‘rewards and punishments,’’ will that mean a shift in federal aid 

to higher education away from individual students to the institutions they attend? 

Is that really the direction that we want to go in a country that traditionally has 

put high value on the individual? As the parent of young children, I know well that 

rewards and punishments induce—whether intended or not—certain behaviors. Is 

Congress certain that it wants to send higher education the message that if you 

don’t graduate all of your students, or if your graduates don’t end up in high paying 

jobs, then you will reduce the financial aid we can make available to students? If 

so, then the behavior you will induce will be a narrowing of the field of students 

that colleges see as ‘‘admissible’’. In essence, colleges will be unable to ‘‘gamble’’ on 

high-need but high-risk students because their potential failure could jeopardize the 

government aid available to all other students. 

5. Will your use of data fundamentally alter the role of the federal government in 

higher education—essentially federalizing what has been a pluralistic, local, and 

entrepreneurial network? 

We have an internationally-respected system of education because it is diverse 

and dynamic; students from across the globe flock to study in the United States— 

even non-Ivy League institutions and those colleges tucked away in rural communities have international student populations in the 2 percent to 10 percent range. 

They come because America’s higher education system is rich in quality and diversity. If you create a system of rigid and well-defined data points, that diversity will 

begin to disappear as many institutions will feel forced to assimilate their programs 

and admissions policies to score well on the common data set. I caution you against 

creating a set of data that unintentionally will become the governmental version of 

the U.S. News & World Report rankings! If institutions must adhere to a set of narrowly-defined priorities and measures the federal government establishes, they’ll do 

that, but lost in that approach will be the diverse models and creativity that have 

defined American higher education since before the nation’s founding. 

While I do not agree with many of these new directions, I encourage you to have 

a purposeful conversation about where Congress wants our educational system to 

go. Similarly, I encourage you to actively reach out not only to researchers, but also 

to practitioners on college campuses to get their feedback on what really matters. 

As Albert Einstein famously said, ‘‘Just because something can be counted, doesn’t 

mean it counts.’’ I fear that many of the millions of us who work on college cam-
31 

puses are not actively engaged in, or even aware of, the profound policy conversation 

taking place in Washington. 

The challenge here is in recognizing that the chosen information will drive policy 

outcomes in ways both intended and unintended. There is the potential to find ourselves in the dilemma best outlined by the age-old fable, The Blind Men and the 

Elephant. In short, it is the story of six blind men who each feel a different part 

of an elephant. Each comes to a different conclusion as to what they have touched 

(a rope for the tail, a spear for the tusks, etc.). Looking at narrow indicators of institutional performance could have the same misleading effect—especially when we 

apply those indicators to the diverse array of institutions in the United States. 

Similarly, I fear some of the well-intentioned analysts advocating innovation in 

post-secondary education are unaware of the remarkable changes taking place on 

most college campuses. Technology is rapidly reinventing how, who, and where we 

teach. Colleges are offering new career programs and serving new student populations. And, more and more campus resources are being allocated to match the federal efforts in student aid, and helping to make college possible for our increasingly 

needy and diverse college population. 

All of this innovation is happening in higher education because of the marketplace. The market has provided higher education with volumes of useful products 

and opportunities that drive our direction—and in turn, many institutions and faculty have contributed to the development of those new innovations. We academics 

sometimes like to think that we are somehow outside of the market, or exempted 

from it. But in reality, the market is the most important driver of educational creativity and quality. Inside the academy, we know which faculty members are the 

most engaging professors, and students ‘‘vote’’ with their feet by registering, or not, 

for their classes. Similarly, if an institution is of poor quality, students and parents 

will figure that out—whether through social media or through the thousands of data 

points currently available to the public—and they will migrate to other educational 

options, eventually causing the weakest institutions to close. In addition to the market, the extensive process of peer-review accreditation in this country provides an 

important level of additional quality oversight. 

In order to be effective, markets need transparency in information. Today, I am 

presenting to you—literally—reams of paper documenting the information that is 

readily and openly available to the public on just one institution—Shenandoah University. Will more disclosure requirements or an over-arching data set really add 

more to what is already there? Or, will it simply add another layer or a narrowing 

of the information available to students and parents as they attempt to navigate the 

higher education sector? 

As the president of a not-for-profit institution of 4,000 students, I am proud of 

working in a field that I believe is essential not only to our nation’s future, but central to who we are as Americans. The way we approach education at Shenandoah 

reflects not only our national traditions, but the history and challenges of our region, and most importantly, the unique needs of our students. Shenandoah would 

be different if we were in California or Maine. Shenandoah would be different if we 

were a public or community college, or a purely liberal arts institution, or a research 

university, or an Ivy League university. Yet, I am proud of our place as one shining 

tile in our national mosaic of higher education, and I am equally proud of my colleagues in higher education who serve different populations in different ways. Together we reflect a high quality and diverse system that is unlike that of any other 

nation. 

As a college president, I can also tell you that every decision you make here affects us profoundly on campus, in more ways than you can realize. If you tell me 

to improve my graduation rates in a certain way, or that you will judge Shenandoah 

by the earnings of our graduates, I am going to respond to that. But if this is done 

under a rigid national formula, bringing the broad swath of American postsecondary 

education under one rubric, I worry that you will unintentionally federalize a system that is strong because of its diverse and non-governmental foundation. And, 

ironically, not only will choice suffer, but quality will suffer as well. 

I recognize the difficulty here. You see a broad taxpayer investment in student 

aid. You need to ensure it is well spent and well used. I have the fun part. I see 

the human face of that investment. I see the low-income, first-generation-to-college 

student who makes it because of our student aid partnership with the federal government. I know it is working, but you don’t have that on-the-ground view. So you 

need proof. But I worry that your proof could become codified in a way that makes 

it less likely that low-income student is given a chance. 

This, I believe, is the real policy conundrum for this reauthorization. We all have 

the same goal, but our needs for evidence are different from the top than from the 
32 

ground. The resulting requirements can also come at considerably higher costs to 

those of us on the ground. 

In this regard, I have also been asked to address today two other aspects of the 

data question: burden and transparency. Specifically, if we could agree upon a narrow set of data points on which to establish institutional validity, could we then reduce some of the heavy regulatory burden and compliance costs for colleges that 

flow from federal, state and accreditor mandates? It is a question worth exploring, 

but one that I am not sure I can fully answer because it involves so many layers 

of independent decision makers, and so many entrenched rules. 

Let me give you the campus view of just the federal role in this issue. I hear a 

lot of criticism from Washington that colleges are not transparent enough. For example, I was asked to address whether colleges should provide more fiscal transparency. From where I sit as a college president, we are drowning in fiscal transparency—and at today’s hearing I am leaving with you a stack of sheets representing just some of the data available right now to the general public about any 

public or non-profit private, two or four year, institution in our country. 

In 2008, the IRS decided they, too, wanted more fiscal transparency and so revised Form 990, the mandated annual filing for all non-profits. The new form, which 

took several years to revise, includes an 11-page, 11-part core form, and 16 schedules. The many reporting changes affecting colleges include governance, compensation of officers, fundraising, public support, political activity, and related organizations. The changes necessitated a major additional workload on every private, nonprofit college, and added considerable auditing costs. 

I have with me today, Shenandoah’s Form 990. I will leave it behind, so you can 

look at it and tell me what you don’t know from reading this that you need to know 

* * * and recall that all of these financial data are available to anyone, since the 

990s are public documents available on-line. Now that our auditors and CFOs are 

all trained on this, now that our compliance software is re-purchased and upgraded, 

are we to expect another new layer of fiscal transparency from the Department of 

Education? 

The year 2008, when the new Form 990 went into effect, was a big year for new 

college regulations because it was also the year that the last reauthorization of the 

Higher Education Act became law. Attached is an executive-level introduction, 

President’s Quick Guide to the New Law, produced by NAICU for independent college presidents, to help us meet the massive campus-wide compliance requirements 

this legislation generated. The guidebook is just a bird’s eye view; for example, it 

includes virtually none of the changes made to the student aid programs, because 

our financial aid offices generally know how to handle those matters. Simply skim 

the book to see the kind of changes affecting areas beyond student aid, including 

campus police, technology officers, CFO’s, institutional researchers, and academic 

affairs—and this in legislation that called for two studies of deregulation—one of 

which has not even been started. 

So, this is the dilemma. Even when Congress tries to deregulate, we end up with 

the new requirements, but no relief on current requirements. And, if those new requirements were to measure us by narrow standards, and make our system of higher education less diverse, we would lose more than we gain. 

I don’t want to close without offering some thoughts on emerging ideas I see as 

having good potential. I think the federal government can play a positive role in 

consumer information. There is much conversation right now, at the national level, 

about how to ensure that students and families have some basic information on all 

colleges to help them find a ‘‘best fit’’ school. I love this idea because, like so many 

of my small-college colleagues, I believe my institution is a hidden gem. Shenandoah 

is just a little more than an hour away from Washington, and easily accessible, but 

I’m sure many of you never heard of my university before today. We have capacity 

to serve more students who might find our university a good fit, but I don’t have 

a big advertising budget. I love the idea that the federal government might help prospective students find us. 

However, let’s look at how the current federal consumer transparency efforts are 

playing out. Just last week, a Senate committee began consideration of a bill that 

would require institutions to collect a whole new set of detailed data for veterans. 

I wholeheartedly support our providing information that helps veterans to make 

smart choices, but I fear that many of the current proposals will not have their intended effect. For example, we estimate that the new Senate requirements include 

almost 30 new items, several of which would have to be further broken down by 

program level. Nearly all of this differs from the information that is already being 

collected by the Department of Education. 

Also last week the House approved its own legislation dealing with information 

for students who are veterans. The approach in this measure avoids many of the 
33 

excesses of the Senate proposal, but is not without its problems as well. For example, it would require disclosure of median Title IV debt levels for all students at an 

institution, while another federal initiative is already calling for disclosure of median debt levels ‘‘for completers.’’ Having two numbers for the same institution that 

will appear to most consumers to describe the same thing confuses more than it enlightens. 

And both of these bills come on top of several other current efforts to provide more 

consumer information by the Administration. Colleges have been asked to sign on 

to the ‘‘Principles of Excellence’’ included in an executive order (EO 13607) dealing 

with veteran- and military-related education programs. Among other requirements, 

institutions agreeing to the principles must provide all military-related students 

with a new Financial Aid Shopping Sheet for the 2013-14 award year. Although a 

final version of the Shopping Sheet has yet to be developed, the Department of Education is already pressing colleges to provide it to all incoming students. The Shopping Sheet is not to be confused with the College Scorecard or the Aid Offer Comparison Tool, also under development. And, all of these are in addition to the College Navigator, the Department of Education’s website intended to help consumers 

chose a college that best fits their needs. 

My students have a term for this: TMI! 

Not only is it too much information, but nearly all of these proposals are based 

on the various factors policy analysts want students to use when making a decision 

on where to go to college—rather than the ones they actually use. 

Let me tell you how the college selection process goes from my vantage point: high 

school students, often with their parents, decide how far away from home they are 

willing to go for college. They get advice—solicited or not—about which college 

would be best for them from relatives, high school teachers and counselors, from 

peers, from Facebook ‘‘friends.’’ They narrow their search in so many ways! Some 

already believe they know what they want to study, so they look for a school that 

has their intended major or career path; while others feel more comfortable with a 

broad, liberal arts environment. Some settle on a place like Liberty University because it is strongly Christian and others lean toward Swarthmore because it is 

deeply academic. University of California at Berkeley attracts those interested in research—or often those with a particular political preference. Northern Virginia 

Community College is the obvious pathway for many in the region who want or 

need to live at home and save money while also presenting them with lots of opportunities. At Shenandoah, we find that students initially look at us and apply to SU 

because of our location, and also because of the variety and quality of academic programs. But in the end, those who choose to attend Shenandoah often say they do 

so because of the warmth and personal touch and faculty support they experienced 

while visiting campus. In effect, our 9:1 student-to-faculty ratio meant nothing to 

them until they experienced it. There is no data set that you can establish that will 

capture the personalized-approach or research-intensiveness or student-life or religious-commitment that in the end compels students to attend and strive to graduate 

from a particular institution. 

My point here is not to disagree with the view that there are some important data 

points we might place in front of perspective students for an informed college selection. Rather, my point is that the selection process includes some very important 

factors that cannot be measured. And just as importantly, if we don’t keep it simple, 

we have accomplished nothing but more costs for colleges and more confusion for 

the student. 

There are some better examples out there. In 2007, NAICU took all the ideas on 

consumer information swirling in Congress during reauthorization, and put them 

before focus groups of perspective parents and students. Attached is the simple, twopage profile on Shenandoah University that resulted from that process. It combines 

both elements of interest to policymakers and the information families told us they 

wanted. We are one of 827 NAICU schools that are signed up to participate in UCAN. I’m citing this example not to promote U-CAN but to make two points: first, 

that less can be more, and second, that the needs and interests of real-world students must inform the development process or the end result can be the type of allbut-the-kitchen-sink approach we see emerging from the veterans committees. 

I’m afraid I may have raised more questions than provided answers today. If so, 

it is because of where we are in the process. The data question is really the tip of 

the iceberg of the more profound underlying questions I have suggested. I want you 

to know that college officials care deeply about our nation’s educational future, and 

we are deeply appreciative of how much Congress has done to support our low-income students’ dreams to go to college. We welcome this conversation and are appreciative that you have asked us to be part of it. 
34 

I understand how tight the federal budget is. I am even more aware of how tight 

the budgets are for so many of our students’ families. The funding to make their 

dreams possible does not come easily, nor without painful tradeoffs, but it does 

make a profound difference in so many lives. We need to ensure that we are accountable to the taxpayers who provide our students with this critically important 

support. However, we also must ensure that any accountability measures are appropriate and helpful, and don’t have unintended consequences. 

Let me thank you again for all you do for the students at Shenandoah University 

and for students across the country. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Dr. Fitzsimmons. 

I want to thank all of you for the excellent material that you presented ahead of time for the record. I had a chance to read it. It 

is full of great information. And I want to make it clear that your 

written statements are on our Web site. They have been sent to all 

of our members. And I am going to encourage them very strongly 

to read them because it is excellent. 

And I appreciate the comments that you have made today, and 

the fact that you did not read your testimonies, but spoke of the 

concerns that you had. So, I just want to make a point about that 

because your material is really excellent and I appreciate it. 

I wanted to ask all of you a question. It is a—the question is a 

little long. But I want to ask you to answer as quickly as you can. 

And then if you want to, again always submit additional information about it for the record, we will certainly get it in. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Will the chairwoman pause for just a moment? I 

have a question. Being that it is just you and me representing both 

sides of the aisle, would—— 

Chairwoman FOXX. Go right ahead. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Would you—I see Chairman Kline just walked in. 

Excellent. You count for five, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I was going to say, he is not chopped liver. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I looked over and noticed that it was just you and 

me. And now that Chairman Kline has come that may change the 

formula. But I was hoping that you would consider having a period 

of at least 30 to 45 minutes of questions to the panelists because 

this is very, very important to all of us. And I was just hoping that 

we would not just have one opportunity to ask 5 minutes of questions. 

Chairwoman FOXX. If we do not have a lot of other members 

come I certainly intend to allow for more than one round of questioning. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. If you show up, you get to do things. 

Now, back to my question; if you had to select five key data 

points the federal government should collect on all institutions of 

higher education, what would they be? Are these data points currently collected by the federal government, or by the states or by 

the crediting agencies? 

Is anybody—I do not want to pick on Dr. Schneider all the time. 

Is anybody prepared? Are you prepared? Please start, and then we 

will go down. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Sure. I will be more than happy to start. 

I think we could identify probably more than five. But I really 

think it is more the extent of the coverage that is fundamental, 
35 

right. And again, I think that we—clearly completion rates is fundamental. I think retention, progression and completion are the 

suite that it has to be, this is a compelling national interest, a compelling student interest. We just need to make sure that it covers 

more students than at the current time. 

I believe that the other fundamental piece of information that is 

needed, and I will limit it to four, is two, student success in the 

labor market afterwards. And we can do that and we should do 

that. And I think, again, we need to have a broader coverage, if you 

will. 

I believe that we have some—not I believe, I know we have information, for example, from the Census Bureau or the BLS at the aggregate level, very high level. But students do not get a bachelor’s 

degree. They get a bachelor’s degree from a program in a specific 

university. Students do not get an associate’s degree. They get an 

associate’s degree from a program in a specific university. 

We need to know what the success rates of those students are 

at the program level. And I think we really—we can do that, and 

we need to do that. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Hallmark? 

Mr. HALLMARK. I believe your question was what should be collected at the federal government level? 

Chairwoman FOXX. Yes. 

Mr. HALLMARK. I think I will say—I am going to weasel out a 

little bit on this answer and indicate that I am not sure that this 

has to be done at the federal level. But I will say that we do need 

good information. And I would agree with the information that my 

colleagues here have mentioned. 

We need completion data, good completion data. And I think the 

word completion rather than graduation, graduate should be used 

because there is various ways by which one can complete their educational goals. 

I think we need to focus on at-risk populations, partly because 

that is where most of the federal money is being targeted, just by 

the nature of the process whereby one qualifies for financial aid. 

And so we ought to be looking at at-risk populations more carefully, seeing what their success rates are, what kinds of programs 

and opportunities are leading to their success and make sure that 

that is money well spent, and if not, redirecting that money in a 

manner in which it would be better spent to serve the goals of the 

state, nation, region and institution. 

Student success after graduation I do think is a valuable—very 

valuable, very important metric that we all need to be paying attention to. And I believe that institutions are doing that much 

more so now than they were 5 years ago and 10 years ago. 

I do believe that progress is being made in that way. It is not, 

perhaps, a slam dunk at this point in terms of institutions having 

the kinds of data as to what their graduates are doing. But I do 

believe the institutions have significantly increased what they are 

doing in that area. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Dr. Cruz, the pressure is on. Not much time. 

Mr. CRUZ. All right. So, I would say extend the graduation 

rates—— 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Push the button. 
36 

Mr. CRUZ. I would say to extend the graduation rates beyond 

first-time, full-time students to include low-income students, transfer students and part-time students. Also to report graduates by financial aid status, those that do not receive Pell Grant programs 

versus those that receive Stafford Loan programs and those that do 

not receive either of those. 

Collect net price data for non-Title IV recipients, add private student loans to the National Student Loan Data System, and use the 

new completion flag to generate new cumulative student loan debt 

by institution. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you. 

Dr. Fitzsimmons? 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. It depends deeply on what the information is 

used for. It is about accountability for Pell Grants. That is one data 

point that is important to the federal government. Otherwise, I am 

not sure that it is the federal government’s job to collect that data 

on behalf of prospective students. 

If you wanted to do that, I would urge you to look at the Ucan 

Web site that already exists. That is www.ucan-network.org because this was created through deep focus groups with prospective 

students and parents and others interested in education. 

What we know is that they tell us that cost is important. Graduation rates are important, except that that matters, that is impacted deeply by the average—the median salary of the families 

that are attending, whether they are first-time college goers that 

are going there, et cetera. 

Please, I urge you to not focus on graduation rates. In fact, there 

are a number of members of this committee that did not graduate 

from college. Clearly they have been highly successful. Others who 

went to institutions who have 31 percent, 48 percent, 51 percent 

graduation rates here. 

I do not think you would want to put your alma maters out of 

business. In fact, they are doing a tremendous job. And they are 

taking risks on some who do not graduate, but at least they have 

been given the opportunity. 

So, I would urge you to think about whether it is the federal government’s role. We already have a Web site for private colleges and 

universities across the country called Ucan that was built on focus 

groups, and gives the information to students, not just measurable 

data, but the other things they are interested in. 

There is a button. You can find out about the local community. 

Do you care about being in a big city versus a rural area? Does 

safety matter to you? Does what kind of spiritual life programs 

matter? 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Dr. Hallmark, thank you for joining us today. My question to you 

is, are there any unique qualities to the A&M project that distinguishes this data from similar dashboard efforts? 

Mr. HALLMARK. Thank you. Appreciate that question. There are 

some. I want to carefully use the word unique because I do not 

know what might be going on in all places everywhere. But cer-
37 

tainly there are some things that we are doing in the A&M System’s metrics project that is unique. 

I think one of the things is our stretch goals where not only are 

institutions identifying where we are right now, but we are also 

identifying where we want to be in 2015 and 2020. And those are 

not necessarily increases or decreases, not necessarily predictable. 

For example, an institution may say we need to downsize a little 

bit because of the nature of what our expanding—our changing 

mission might be. For example, I provided my oral testimony of research—or excuse me, expenditures per full time student equivalent. And institutions such as A&M at Texarkana has downward 

expanded to include freshmen and sophomore students, which require a tremendous amount of support that is not necessary for 

success for an upper division and graduate students. 

So, they are increasing their expenditures per full-time student 

equivalent. And so majors like that I think are very forward-thinking and thinking through what the specific mission is of the institution and how it can best serve its public. 

The only other thing I would mention, I would say there are several. But the only other thing I would want to mention at this time 

without further follow up is our excellence measures where each institution has said here is a core mission that our institution has. 

We are targeting let us say Hispanic populations, and we are 

specifically tracking that for that institution. And I know that is 

common data, but the point is the institution is saying this is important and we are going to track that and be held accountable for 

improving our performance in that area. And each institution—— 

Mr. HINOJOSA. That is interesting. And I am going to come back 

to you on another question in the next round. 

I would like to ask Dr. Fitzsimmons a question. If consumers are 

not informed and able to make comparisons across institutions, students’ choices do not reflect a quality education. So, do not you 

agree that students can make more informed choices about universities when they have information on outcomes? 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. And in fact, Ranking Member Hinojosa, students do make those choices right now. There are a number of Web 

sites available where students can go and compare institutions. 

They can put in certain questions, you know I am looking for do 

they have this major, how much does it cost, is it a public or private, et cetera? So, they can do comparisons right now. It exists in 

a number of these datasets. Okay. 

I think the challenge is, is that so much of what students are interested in, it is difficult to measure in terms of quantitative data. 

I am a political scientist by training. We rely on quantitative and 

qualitative data. We ask our students to do that in classrooms as 

well across this country. We have to find a way for both. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I will come back to you with another question in 

the next round. 

Dr. Cruz, do you believe it is narrow-minded or unreasonable for 

the federal government to hold institutions accountable for the student’s ability to repay loans? 

Mr. CRUZ. I do not think that it is narrow-minded at all. I think 

that it is something that should be done. It is important for students to understand not only sort of the value or the qualitative 
38 

value that it will get from an institution, but also the cost and the 

risks associated with not graduating from that institution because 

it might be that that institution is not doing as much as it could 

to support that particular student. 

I do not think there is a disconnect between requiring institutions to provide more information to students, including the graduation rates for low-income students, and the ability of the students to also evaluate the qualitative aspects of particular institutions. 

I have a senior who is in high school right now, and he gets more 

mail than anybody in the household; every day at least three or 

four very shiny mailings from different universities across the 

country. So, the fact that we would be requiring institutions to be 

more forthcoming about how they are serving their students and 

the costs associated with that service does not impede that there 

would continue to be these other mechanisms by which the students can get a broader picture of an institution. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I share with you the feeling that your son or 

daughter is receiving more mail. I have the same thing with my 

young girl, 18 years old, in my household. And it is the same way 

there. 

I have more questions, but I will yield and come back at the next 

round. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

Chairman Kline? 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank our panelists for being here. It is not every day we get a panel where every 

name starts with doctor, but very impressive. 

I was thinking about my own college-going decision many, many, 

many years ago. And at the time it would seem fairly simple for 

me. I happened to be living in Corpus Christi, Texas at the time. 

And so I was looking at different schools. And sorry to say, I did 

not look a whole lot at Texas A&M. 

But you know I looked at the University of Texas. And at the 

time it was relatively inexpensive for a Texas resident to go to University of Texas. And so I was making my decision to go because 

it was relatively inexpensive. And then I was offered—got a letter 

from Rice University, and they offered me a full scholarship. And 

so free was better than cheap. And I went to Rice. 

So, I do not—I think it is not quite that simple now, although 

it may be for some families. They are looking for free is better than 

cheap, and cheap is better than expensive. 

But around here we talk about return on investment a lot. And 

so I want to go to Dr. Fitzsimmons first. Just because we are talking about return on investment does not necessarily mean that 

families and students are. 

And my question is do you think they are? And if they are, what 

is the return on investment? What counts? Is it getting a job? Is 

it the pride of being part of winning football teams? What is the 

return on investment? And how are they—if they are including 

that in their calculations, what are they looking for? 

What—I am impressed by that huge stack of paper to your side 

there. I want to get at that also in a minute. 
39 

What do you think? What do they—what are they saying on 

what return on investment means, if they are? 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. They are all talking about return on investment. The challenge is, is that how we each define return on investment is different. And so for a student who is entering into a 

music theater career, the return on investment might be that she 

does not graduate because after sophomore year she got an opportunity to perform in the national tour of Beauty and the Beast. 

That is a tremendous return on her investment if we prepared her 

for that. 

Or the student who decided to major in business and after junior 

year she had a phenomenal idea and she left to start her own company. I hope she will come back to college someday. But that might 

be a great return on investment that we prepared her to be an entrepreneur. 

For other families the idea of a great return on an investment 

is that their student will learn a lot and be well prepared for a career, while also being able to deepen his or her spiritual belief 

while in college. The return on investment for some is to have their 

child close to home because they need help in other ways on the 

weekends or on the evenings during the week. And for others it is 

that first kid that ever graduates from college in the entire family. 

The challenge is I do not think it is the federal government’s job 

to define return on investment for the young people of our country; 

helping provide lots of opportunities to access data, certainly. 

And to what Dr. Cruz was speaking of, those kinds of data, I can 

tell you for Shenandoah University and so many other institutions 

across our country, right here in that big bottom part, that is the 

facts book. It is online. You can find answers to all those questions 

that you were asking for right on our Web site. So, if your son or 

daughter is a senior is interested, I would urge them to think about 

that. 

Mr. KLINE. Let me interrupt if I could. Thanks for that answer. 

But I am curious as to why you said you hoped she would go back 

to college in your example. What would be the return on investment there? She left after a sophomore or junior year, was very 

successful. Why did she go back to college? 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. I guess I am one of those old fashioned people 

that believes that college is about both preparation for a career. 

That we would have done successfully in the example I gave you. 

But the other part is that we are preparing people for a lifetime 

of great decisions with the breadth of education available. 

So, I think that a great course in political science helps us be 

better voters. I think it is important to know something about literature and science. And so I would urge her to come back to college so that she can broaden her thinking. 

Mr. KLINE. I guess I am old-fashioned too. I see that my time is 

about to expire. Clearly, and so I do not want to get into another 

question here except that part of what seems to me we need to be 

doing is something about huge stacks of paper. 

We have had hearings here before where people from different 

college and universities came in with binders full of regulations, 

many of them federal regulations that they have to deal with that 

probably do not help a single student either get a degree or get a 
40 

job. But it is a pretty big pile of stuff. And so we are always interested, many of us at least interested in how can we streamline 

things and make them simpler? 

Madam Chair, I see my time is expired. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The word got out that this was a very stimulating hearing and 

people are beginning to show up. 

So, Congresswoman Davis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate you all being here. You know we are talking about 

how each individual student would really value the cost of their 

education, and how difficult that is. But I think that the other 

issue is whether or not the information that they are looking at 

necessarily reflects information that is required, which is problematic on the one hand. 

But on the other hand maybe it is just voluntary information so 

that there are some institutions or some other ways in which that 

information is getting out there, but does not necessarily reflect all 

the information that is out there so that it is a bit skewed. And 

students are having difficulty with that. 

So, getting to the question of what the federal role is, because 

surveys are not enough probably in getting that information. If students are evaluating whether or not this is really going to be the 

best thing for their buck. If they are comparing and they are trying 

to look at those issues and they are trying to think through whether or not they will have higher employment opportunities or they 

are going to be paid more versus another school. 

Is that important information to have? I know you suggested, 

and I would kind of go along with the fact that graduation rates 

per se may not be the best thing. Maybe it is not even how much 

they are going to be paid at the end, but whether or not they are 

actually employed. 

What is it that really gives a student the opportunity to try and 

fully evaluate over and above whether I want to go to a certain 

school, you know all the things that come into a decision that a 

student would make? I mean what is the bottom line for that, if 

a family is struggling with what they can afford and they want the 

biggest bang for their buck, what is it? And who gets that? How 

do you get that information to students? 

Mr. HALLMARK. I would be happy to provide some comment on 

that. It is difficult because every student who enters the institution 

comes with a very different goal. If you have got 10,000 students 

in your institution, you probably have 5,000 to 6,000 or 7,000 different goals. 

Some, and I mentioned this in my oral testimony, particularly at 

the community college level, are seeking a certification or a set of 

hours that they need in order to get job x. And that is a very different goal than somebody who is seeking a bachelor’s degree so 

they can get into law school or something of that nature; or accounting degree to pursue a particular—so, I think our goals are 

much more diverse than simply graduation or persistence or whatever the case might be. And that makes the data collection process 

considerably more complex. 
41 

I do not have an answer, but I do think that is an incredibly important part of this is that the students come to us with varying 

goals. And if we could figure out a way to tap what those goals are 

and plug them into some kind of measurement system then we 

would have a tremendous asset there. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. May I follow up? Yes, of course students have 

very complicated goals in attending college. And we could actually 

obfuscate and we could do all kinds of crazy things to say we are 

never going to get to a core set of metrics that we could emphasize. 

But the fact of the matter is that the return on the investment is 

an organizing principle that could cut through a lot of of noise. 

So, the return on the investment is actually I am going to go to 

this school; what is my probability? So, it has to be individualized. 

What is my probability of graduating? How long is it likely to take 

me to graduate? So, that is my investment. How much am I paying, my net price? Okay. 

So, now I could actually, from the student perspective, I could actually figure out in fairly great detail what my personal investment 

in my education is. If we now extend this to what is a, my probability of having a job and b, what my likely outcome in terms of 

salary is, which we can do. Then we could get an organizing principle around the ROI. 

I agree that students have many more things that they care 

about. Some of them may be really core to the mission. Some of 

them may be just you know personally interesting, a football team; 

I like the orange of the Longhorns compared to whatever—sorry, 

I do not know what TAMU’s colors are. But anyway—— 

Mr. HALLMARK. Aggies. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes, Aggies, whatever. But I mean so those 

things matter. But from our perspective, I think from the perspective of data systems and the kind of issues that the Congress could 

deal with, I think that focusing on the ROI, computing it, making 

it easily available is fundamental to our task. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Go ahead, Dr. Cruz. 

Mr. CRUZ. I would echo what Dr. Schneider said. It is not about 

the extra data or qualitative issues around whether or not to go to 

college. There are just some fundamental questions that students 

should be able to get answers to. In the era of big data we should 

be able to provide every student an indication, a personalized, individualized indication of what the net price is, what the likelihood 

of this person graduating in X number of years will be, and what 

their ability to repay any student loans is. Those are fundamental 

questions that need to be answered, and are not right now. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I guess part of it is, how do you know that you are 

getting relevant information within that if it is not just by anecdote 

or survey? The requirement piece of it is what I think we are all 

struggling with. 

Mr. CRUZ. So, there are various initiatives that have already 

been able to define the data and the metrics and the tools that can 

be used to have sort of a uniform view of these issues. So, the Complete College America initiative with NGA has been mentioned; the 

Access to Success Initiative as well. There are already institutions 

that are collecting this data and reporting this data. The one element that we are missing is making it go beyond the voluntary 
42 

stage and having one place where people can see across the board 

comparisons. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. PLATTS [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. I yield myself 5 

minutes. 

I do not have I guess a specific question; I apologize. I was coming in from one hearing and as soon as the chairwoman comes back 

I have got to run to another one. But glad to have a chance to get 

your written testimony. Thank each of you for your testimony and 

also your work day in and day out on this issue. And I guess I look 

at the issue in two different ways. 

One is the individual return on investment, which is that job opportunity or that career, that entrepreneurial opportunity, and 

then the broader public return on investment. And really going 

back to our founding fathers, who in establishing some of our early 

institutions understood that as a new democracy a key to our success was having an educated citizenry if we were to be an effective 

democracy, and you know that return of investment is not a dollar 

amount. 

But just a citizens that are well-rounded, the liberal arts education approach, that they are going to be therefore more engaged 

in the process of governing. On the individual side there is certainly data I think is relevant. 

And the couple that I would highlight that as we look further 

into this, one that is very important to me, and what I am running 

is an Armed Services Committee hearing with the GI Bill and a 

record number of veterans now coming back into the education 

community that we are making sure that those true heroes of our 

nation have data to know that this institution, this degree is a good 

match for me, has a good record of success or assistance to veterans versus others that maybe are not as strong. 

So, that data that we can highlight that relate to the veterans 

community I think is key. You know the data that goes to an incumbent freshman, a traditional freshman probably more so maybe 

than others, but not necessarily, but is looking at the typical student at an institution. 

And I think it was in the Chronicle of Higher Ed just in the last 

edition or two where they highlighted that maybe as much—according to their—I think their review that about 25 percent of institutions provided different SAT scores to the Department of Education than to U.S. News & World Report for their ranking of their 

college or university. 

That raises a concern that hey we are providing data, but why 

is it different that is going to the department versus the ranking 

entity that so many families look at to evaluate the quality of that 

school? So, there is data being provided, but not necessarily consistent data. 

And then a final and also is that was already mentioned is how 

do you evaluate that return on investment from getting a $50,000 

a year education and having extensive debt for a job that you know 

up front maybe is a $25,000 a year job because it is in social services? And making that informed decision. Is it still worth getting 

that top tier education? Or should we you know, maybe look at a 

less expensive still good education, but less expensive? 
43 

I mean, those are so many different factors that go into the type 

of information through the user that information is going to be, 

how they are going to use it. And you know taking a quick look 

at the written testimony you provide. And I apologize I did not get 

to hear your oral testimony here today. But you are helping with 

that dialogue of how do we hone in on this? 

In the end, did it grow if it is an institution yourself, you know, 

to provide as open and transparent information to your possible 

students or those who attend. Or to the federal government as a 

provider of a significant sum of the taxpayer funds that we all kind 

of move the ball down the field that we get—hone this process as 

best we can to be as effective—excuse me. 

I apologize. My first day back after being laid out for 3 days, so 

still trying to get over this. Hopefully I am not contaminating anybody. I will not touch anything. 

I think I will wrap up because I am going to be able—I am not 

going to be able to continue to talk. And yield to my distinguished 

colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, for purpose of questions. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope you feel better. 

I apologize for not being here for your oral testimony, but I read 

your written statements, and I thank you for your diligence. 

One of the problems that we have in higher education law right 

now is for purposes of tracking the value of our investment in Title 

IV money, we have two broad categories. We have gainful employment and everything else. So, if something fits the statutory definition of gainful, it is now subject to—sort of subject now to some 

convoluted new rules, most of which have been struck down by the 

courts about debt-to-income ratio. 

It takes about 30 minutes to explain it. And I do not think it is 

a very good idea, frankly. And then we have everything else, you 

know, from a PhD in philosophy at Yale to a community college degree in accounting and sort of everything in between. Do you think 

that we should create some new gradations in those categories that 

would differentiate among the type of data we collect? 

The premise of my question is this. I do not think you measure 

the quality of Yale’s PhD program by what the PhD doctoral graduates do. I do not know how you measure that. 

Speaking as a parent who has a daughter who might go to graduate school, I know you cannot measure success on these bases. 

But I think you certainly can measure an auto mechanic certificate 

training program as to whether someone gets a job as an auto mechanic. 

There is a lot of in between. Do you think we need some new categories in the law to help us differentiate both in the collection and 

interpretation of data? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. So, I—the dreaded gainful employment word has 

finally come up. I think that to me was pretty much of a debacle. 

I think what happened in that was that there was a regulatory attempt that was far in excess of the ability of the data to support 

it. I believe fundamentally that—I understand the legislation and 

I understand why this was restricted to the for profits because of 

the terminology in HEA. But the fact of the matter is that I do believe that we need those data, the same kinds of data for every program in the nation. And I believe that we have—— 
44 

Mr. ANDREWS. I completely agree. Uniformity of treatment on 

that—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Uniformity of treatment. 

But let me go back to I think what is inherent in your question. 

And that is whether or not this is an informational exercise or a 

regulatory exercise. I think what happened with GE was that we 

put regulation in front of getting the data right. And this to me 

was really a fundamental misstep. And again, I understand you 

know the Department of Education regulation and, you know, the 

legislative language. But the fact of the matter is I do not believe 

that we are quite ready for the regulations. 

Mr. ANDREWS. By the way, the courts echo your opinion. Their 

opinion in that case was that the department has the regulatory 

authority to do this, but they lack data to justify the rule that they 

in fact put forward, which is kind of the premise of my question. 

What data should we be collecting across the board? 

And again, I want to say this; that I do not think you can measure a philosophy PhD program the way you do an auto mechanic 

training. You just cannot. And what I am interested in are your 

thoughts about what we ought to be measuring, for whom and for 

what purpose? 

Well, ultimately—one of my favorite movies is the movie Accepted. Ever see this? This guy does not get into any good schools, so 

he invents a college. He has got this geeky friend and they invent 

a college so his parents are duped into thinking he is at a real college. 

So, they have to put on this big front when the parents show up 

the first day and one guy’s drunk uncle becomes the dean. This 

never happens in real life does it? And the parents walk in. And 

the father asks the dean what the purpose of the college is. And 

the guy starts sort of a long-winded explanation. The father rolls 

his eyes. You can tell he is ready to leave the campus. 

Finally, the dean says, you know what? The purpose of this college is to get a job. Well, the father loves this. Okay. The father 

thinks this is the reason for being for higher education. 

What answer should be given to that father? What data should 

we be giving him and his spouse and his son or daughter? 

Mr. HALLMARK. I cannot speak to the gainful employment; do not 

know the law well enough to comment. But I do think I want to 

go to your broader issue there, and that is how do we assess a PhD 

or a bachelor’s degree in history or some of these very important 

historical liberal arts kinds of degrees that right now are not as 

fashionable because they do not lead to a specific job as clearly as 

say auto mechanic kind of certification. 

I think one of the things that we have to do is think longer term. 

When you look around, say, at a bachelor’s degree in history, you 

are not looking at a gainful employment 6 months or a year or 2 

years down the road—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. Maybe never, huh? 

Mr. HALLMARK. Maybe never. But that student may very well be 

a great poet, or may very well be—goes to law school when they 

are 35 and becomes an elected official. I mean, there are so many 

variables there that you cannot look just at the immediate outcome, but rather look longer term. And also going to the issue of 
45 

the engaged citizenry, something I believe in, that we have a full 

range of outcomes that are not dollar-wise tangible. 

Mr. ANDREWS. If I may, my time is about to close. I want to 

thank the chairwoman for having this hearing because it is a really 

dry, sterile topic, but it really needs to be looked at. Because we 

are investing billions and billions of taxpayer dollars every year, 

and we have very little idea what we are getting for it. 

Now, I think intuitively it is a pretty good thing. And I think one 

of the reasons this country is the strongest country in the world, 

is it has got the best higher education system in the world. But I 

would like to be able to hone in on that and really understand a 

little more surgically. And I am convinced, as I think each of the 

witnesses have said, that the present data sets are in some cases 

over-inclusive, in other cases under inclusive. 

They do not really let us make the kind of diagnosis that we 

need to make. And I think it is a very serious and very relevant 

topic that we can work on together to find data collection that is 

not overly burdensome on the institutions, but very valuable for 

the students and the taxpayers. Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. I want to thank Mr. Andrews. And early— 

late last night, early this morning I was reading an article called 

‘‘Who Killed the Liberal Arts’’ by Joseph Epstein. I think it is in 

the Weekly Standard, recent Weekly Standard. And I want to commend it to you. It is—I was laughing out loud—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. I rarely read the Weekly Standard—— 

Chairwoman FOXX. Well—— 

Mr. ANDREWS. I will make an exception in this case. 

Chairwoman FOXX. It has some really good articles in it. And 

this is a good one. But, I have to say, I do not know how many people are going to appreciate all the humor that is in it. There is a 

good bit of humor in the article. But I recommend it to you. 

I believe now that we will do what Mr. Hinojosa wanted to do, 

which is to have a second round of questioning. And I would like 

to ask Dr. Schneider, given the constraints of current federal law, 

what options are available for the federal government and states 

to collect and provide useful post-secondary data without infringing 

upon the privacy rights of students and their families? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The balance between what the states can and 

should do and what the federal government can and should do is 

one of course that is constantly evolving. And I think it is a very 

important discussion with no fixed answer, right. We have been at 

this for hundreds of years, and we will be at it hopefully for another hundreds of years trying to figure out the appropriate balance. 

In terms of the federal data collection, at the current point in 

time I think that in the reauthorization of HEA I think that is an 

ideal opportunity for the Congress to start cleaning out the IPEDS 

attic. There is just stuff in there that you know may have been important at one time or seemed important at one time. And I think 

that we really need a systematic effort to do this. And I think we 

need to ask the question, what is the compelling national interest 

in collecting data? 

And you know I—so you can tell that I did not even know what 

color the Aggies wore. So, I am not really much on sports. But you 
46 

know we collect a lot of data on athletes and athletics. Why? You 

know what is the compelling national interest in that? You know 

our HR collection is, again, needs to be rethought. 

I think that—but again, I am going to lay some of this blame on 

the history of legislation. And one of the things that I think is fundamental is an inventory of what is the legislative requirement and 

what are just sort of things people made up along the way? 

And if we want to clean out some of the attic then I think that 

legislation in the HEA, I think we may have the opportunity to get 

rid of some of the stuff. And I believe it is—you know given how 

long it sometimes takes to reauthorize HEA, maybe once in a lifetime. But we need to—we need to—I think we need to systematically work on that. 

I also think, and this goes to the issue of burden. We now require 

a school with 100 students to report all the same data elements as 

a school of 60,000 or 100,000 students. And some schools, given the 

fixation on first-time, full-time students, there are many schools 

that have a handful of those. So, why are we forcing schools to report all the data on students that do not exist? And I think again 

what we really need to do is to be more mindful about the diversity 

in the admission and size of campuses. 

And finally, as the ex-commissioner of NCES, I want—I really 

believe that that is a gem. They actually—you should engage them 

in a discussion about what they see on the ground about what is 

useful, what causes the campuses to pull their hair out you know? 

So, I think that that is a discussion that I think needs to be undertaken. 

I think the states obviously have a lot more skin in the game 

than the federal government in terms of supporting especially public institutions. And I think that we have to be—you know when 

I was at NCES you know we dealt with states all the time. And 

I just sort of, cannot you understand? Can you not understand? Do 

this, do this, do this; and it is of course that is an unhelpful attitude. 

The states actually have incredible—you know incredible 

amounts of money in this. They have incredible regulatory authority. And actually they are wonderful partners. It is just longer and 

harder. But we have to be respectful of states. And states actually 

have control of so much more data than we have. 

For example, wage data, unemployment insurance data. They 

could link it at the current time. I think we have to explore those 

and then figure out what the limits of that are and build on that 

because for example the work that I am doing in Tennessee and 

Virginia using the state linked Student Unit Record and the unemployment insurance data we can match half of the students. 

So, right now—it is not right now. We can do this right now. We 

are doing this, and reporting the wages from every program in a 

bunch of states. We can do that right now. 

But there are these problems of coverage. And it may be ultimately that the nation decides that we really need a much more 

national approach to that kind of linkage than just relying on the 

states. But the states can and should do that right now. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 
47 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I am going to ask a short question, Dr. Hallmark. 

Once you have the data that we are asking that you all collect, 

then what? And how do you transform that data into meaningful 

information for parents and perspective students? 

Mr. HALLMARK. I was struck by the huge stack down here and 

I think that is part of the problem is that when you have a fact 

book that thick, which I think we probably all do, it is so overwhelming to making any kind of decision. You do not really know 

where to go, how to approach that. 

And so what the institution, state, whatever it might be, has to 

transform that data into something that is more meaningful to the 

decision maker. And I would say that is not just limited to a parent 

or a student, but that is true of a president or a provost or a dean 

as well. The data is overwhelming that already exists there and so 

it must be transformed. 

What we have done in the A&M System is we have gone through 

and decided what metrics we believe are most important. And importantly we did that at a grassroots level and from the top. We 

had it going on, and fortunately it worked out quite well, so far 

anyway. 

But we have had the institutions of folks through committees of 

faculty and staff to say what is it that is so important that we want 

to be tracking and measuring so that we can demonstrate that we 

are furthering our mission along and serving these students better? 

And we have done that at the institution level, at the system level 

so that we are focusing on those specific metrics instead of the 

huge stack. And I think that is a very useful way to go about it 

is identifying what it is. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you for answering my question. Do not be 

overwhelmed by that stack because in the first panelist’s statement, Dr. Schneider, said the federal government spends billions 

and billions of dollars in higher education. And he referred to the 

1950s and all the way through the 1990s. 

But I want the record to show that unfortunately minority institutions of higher learning were getting the lowest percentage of 

those billions and billions of dollars. And I will give you something 

very specific. 

In 1992 we created under the Higher Education Act the Hispanic 

Serving Institution designation. And the amount of money given to 

the HSIs was zero. In 1994 the appropriators gave them zero. I 

came here in 1996 and they were getting $11 million for 36 HSIs. 

And in 1997 they got $11 million for 37 HSIs. 

So, as you can see, it was very, very little. So, now that we have 

a stack that size, I can tell you that we are doing a little bit better 

for all minority institutions of higher learning, including HBCUs, 

HSIs, and Asian-American colleges. So, we need some data collected now that there is much more money. 

Okay. And few said that, as of 2010 and 2011, Hispanics make 

up the largest minority group that is now attending 2-year and 4- 

year universities. So, we need more data like that so that we can 

see just how women and minorities are being served in higher education. 
48 

We have a long ways to go to close that gap. But I am so glad 

to see a woman and a Hispanic were chosen to be our panelists. 

So, thank you for that, Chairwoman Foxx. 

It is wonderful to hear all of you speak. But especially to have 

the woman’s point of view and the Latino’s point of view because 

that is the group that is really, really growing: about 55 percent 

of college graduates are women today, and about 55 percent or 56 

percent of voters are women. 

So, we need to really pay attention to why this data is being 

asked for by this panel—I mean, by this group of congressmen who 

have been attending the congressional hearing. It is a pleasure. 

And I will ask the last question of you, Dr. Fitzsimmons. 

I recognize that 88 percent of your students in your college are 

24 years of age or younger. However, single mothers going back to 

school part-time to increase their skills do not have a counselor like 

my daughter had. These students rely on user-friendly data that 

allow prospective students to compare institutions. How would 

these tools inhibit choice of college, they selected? 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. Of course, the challenge, Congressmen, for 

those single women raising children is that they frequently are not 

mobile. So, they have very limited choices. And they tend to focus 

on their local community college or the 4-year institution that is 

closest to them. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. That is true. 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. So, the real question is what kinds of programs do we have available to be supportive to them? And frankly 

there are men who are in their position right now also. 

We have got a veteran who is about to graduate from Shenandoah. He is a male. He is obviously an older student and he is 

recently divorced and he has primary custody for two of his young 

children. He is working and he is taking 19 hours, credit hours. 

And you know what? He is going to graduate with all A’s and B’s 

on his transcript it looks like. 

But the question to all the colleges and universities should be not 

only what kinds of data do we put out to help them make decisions, 

but how can we help them through? What kinds—do we have 

childcare available? We have a childcare center at Shenandoah 

University available to faculty, staff and students, subsidized for 

them. 

Many institutions, including my institution have special tutoring 

programs available to help. The chairwoman has started in her 

comments, and you echoed those as well, that the traditional student is not the typical student. 

Our typical student in American higher education is older, is interested in some type of online learning, has some high-risk challenge. That might be that they have learning differences. It might 

be a student who has Asperger’s who’s going to school and needs 

some special support. It might be that they are a first generation 

college student and nobody is cheering them on. And so how can 

we all create that family environment for them? 

The typical student looks very different now than it did 50 years 

ago. You should be encouraging us and finding us and finding out 

what we already do because it is amazing the programs offered to 

support students who are typical, but not traditional. 
49 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Okay. We are going to try one more round. 

Let us go back again to looking a little bit at the state and what 

the states are doing now. And if you all might respond to this; 

what factors are there that make up the high-quality state—state 

longitudinal data systems? And what factors are missing from the 

low-quality state data systems? 

I think, Dr. Schneider, you said that some states are doing very 

well; others are doing it, but are not publishing it. Do we know 

why there are those problems with the states? Are there people in 

the state who are—are certain people resisting putting out that information or developing the systems? Is there any kind of pattern 

that you have seen? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes and yes and yes. I do not know how many 

compounds there were in your question, but the answer is yes to 

almost all of them. 

I think one of the mistakes that we made, and remember, we are 

$700 million into this process, was that we did not have a use requirement. And there is a long history on this. There was no use 

requirement on this data. 

So, what has happened is that we have made this huge investment in these data warehouses, which I think of—I sometimes call 

them data mausoleums and going back to many years ago I think 

of them—you remember there was something called the roach 

motel. You know roaches checked in, but they never checked out. 

So, sometimes I think these data systems as the equivalent. You 

know data checks in and we never see them again. 

So, we spend a lot of money on building these and actually very, 

very few concrete products that actually can and should help us inform consumer choice. So, and I must—you know some states are 

stepping up. And I spent a lot of time trying to get states to open 

up these data warehouses to make them available. 

I am not the only person that is doing it. But you know I am one 

of the people out in the forefront. And Texas has stepped up and 

Virginia has stepped up. These are partners of—with us. It is a 

long, complicated process often because of the politics of data. It is 

not that the data do not exist. It is that the data do exist. And 

sometimes the results are not—do not make people all that happy. 

So, in the Tennessee data, which we released earlier this week 

on Tuesday, there are—there are graduates from programs in the 

state of Tennessee where the average earnings of bachelor’s degrees are $25,000, $22,000. And I think there are others in the 

exact same fields that are $35,000 and $40,000. So, some people 

have actually asked several times about, how do we compare across 

schools? 

So, in my written testimony I talk about risk adjusted metrics. 

And I think one of the things that we need to do is mount a serious 

effort to get risk adjusted metrics right. And we can do it. Hospitals do it all the time, right? And I think that institutions of 

higher learning need to do this also. 

But, I think that they are—at the end of the day there are programs that are going to do way better than other programs. And 

we could adjust for the characteristics of the students or we could 

adjust for the regional labor market. All fair points and we have 
50 

to—and ultimately we have to do this. But ultimately there are 

programs that are just not up to the standard. 

Now, this is where the state—this is where we end up with the 

state versus the federal government in information versus regulation, right? So, this is at the junction of all these fundamental, 

these fundamental issues. Again, I believe that the federal government missed an opportunity by putting—by not putting use requirements into these data systems. And I care most about the 

higher ed. But it is the same thing with the K-12 system. 

So, we missed that and we missed an incredible return on a lot 

of money invested. And I believe that in the regulation versus information side, we are not at the regulatory stage, right. And I believe that the GE process told us that we are not ready for the regulation. But I also believe that we need to figure out how to get 

this information in the hands of consumers in a usable way. 

Now, that may be the state. That may be a private entity. There 

are all kinds of private entity companies out there that do big data, 

trying to push information out to students, guide them in the right 

way. And right now that may be as good as we can do, right. But 

I do not think we are at this junction between federal, state and 

information versus regulation. I do not think we are at a point 

where we can say this is federal, this is regulatory. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I want to ask a question of Dr. Cruz, following up on one of the 

last comments that Dr. Fitzsimmons made about that young man 

who is single parent, with two children and carrying 18, 19 hours. 

We have a problem in the state of Texas in that it is taking our 

students 6 or 7 years to graduate with a bachelor’s degree. And 

there is talk about how we can improve that. What kind of incentives would you give us, Dr. Cruz, for colleges and members of Congress to promote so that we can graduate them in four, but not 

more than 5 years? 

Mr. CRUZ. The actual incentives I think need to be informed by 

the data. And it brings us back to sort of some of the issues that 

we have been talking about today. So, we know that certain colleges and universities do better for their students than what similar institutions do for theirs. 

So, it is important that as we define what the new data requirements would be, or the new additions that we would have to fill 

some of the gaps in the current databases, that we work hard to 

ensure that the data that is collected will then allow policymakers 

and students and their families to be able to see which institutions 

are doing a better job to educate students that look like them. 

So, I am a Latino. I just graduated from high school and I have 

a certain socioeconomic background. And I am contemplating going 

to a particular school. I want to know if that school has the supports in place that will allow me to complete and will allow me to 

complete in a timely fashion, in 4 years if that is my goal. And it 

will allow me to complete in such a way that it will eventually, the 

value of that degree will allow me to get a job and to be able to 

pay back my debts. 
51 

So, we need to be able to have the data to be able to then devise 

the incentives. And going back to the gainful employment regulation discussion previously, that is something that the federal government tried to do for the for-profit sector. 

The numbers of the sector as a whole indicated that something 

needed to be done. It is a sector that enrolls currently 13 percent 

of all the post-secondary students in the U.S., yet takes in 24 percent of the federal financial aid dollars and produces 43 percent of 

the student loan defaults. So, it made sense from that view of the 

data to try to figure out a way to identify those schools and programs that were not doing a good job. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. That data certainly would help us. But let me just 

say this from experience, that some of our Latino students, men 

and women, who are given an internship while they are going to 

college and work 10 hours, 15 hours, no more than 20 hours often 

times can make it and they balance their time to be able to do it. 

How could we have at least a third of the jobs that are available 

by the college or the university at the library, working and serving 

at the mess hall or wherever, and giving them that opportunity so 

that they could accomplish the goal that I am asking for, graduate 

in 4, 5 years? Can that be done? 

Mr. CRUZ. That would definitely help them. I mean, I think that 

what we have seen is that the institutions that are intentional 

about graduating their students and figure out what are the types 

of supports they need to put in place. And one of them is really to 

help their students—— 

Mr. HINOJOSA. So, it is possible? 

Mr. CRUZ [continuing]. More time in their schools. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Hallmark, Texas A&M was all men back in 

the 1950s. And now it is both men and women. And I want to talk 

about women in STEM majors, STEM careers. Because they are 

graduating much higher than 50 percent of graduates, what is 

A&M doing to recruit and help graduate women in STEM majors 

so that they can have those careers? 

Mr. HALLMARK. Diversity at our flagship campus in College Station is not what it needs to be, and is a significant focus of the institution. I have a vice chancellor, in fact, of the A&M System is 

now devoted to diversity and recruitment efforts. That is focused 

primarily on College Station. 

I am not personally familiar with all of those programs, but I 

would be happy to get back with you on that. I do not know the 

details of them well enough—— 

Mr. HINOJOSA. If it could be done at College Station, could not 

it be done in the other 11 satellite campuses? 

Mr. HALLMARK. Diversity is not as big a challenge in those. We 

have good Hispanic female numbers, for example. In fact, at one 

of our campuses NSF right now, National Science Foundation is 

very interested in our success with female Hispanics in engineering. So, we are looking at how that is working well in our regional 

campuses, and we are also seeking how we can improve that at the 

flagship campuses. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. So, there is hope? 

Mr. HALLMARK. Yes. 
52 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for taking 

time to testify before the subcommittee today. As I said to you earlier, I think we are beginning a long journey on this, and others 

of you have alluded to it in preparation for the reauthorization of 

the Higher Education Act. But you help us make the first steps, 

and I appreciate that. 

Mr. Hinojosa, do you have some closing remarks? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Yes. Yes, I do. 

In closing I also want to thank all our panel of experts for sharing your views on this issue. As we look to improve data on postsecondary education and reauthorize the Higher Education Act in 

the next, or the 113th Congress, it is important to closely examine 

what types of data are most useful, relevant and user friendly to 

consumers and institutions of higher learning. 

And with that I yield back. 

Chairwoman FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. I do not know how 

much the panel knows about my background, but I worked at Appalachian State University for many years, handled—was an Upward Bound special services director. I did academic advising and 

orientation for new—for freshmen as well as transfer students. I 

became a president of a community college. 

I have been frustrated by this issue all my life. And am—thought 

years ago that we were going to do better at solving the issue of 

data collection and understanding what our needs were. The language of the—of your presentations and the material I have been 

reading brings back a lot of memories to me of concerns that I 

have. 

I appreciate very much the emphasis that you have put on the 

issue of completion. Again, having seen students leave colleges 

without a degree, but having fulfilled needs they had and going on 

to be successful is an experience I have had. So, I agree with you 

on that. 

I agree with you talking about the need to deal with at-risk students. I am particularly concerned with the point I think Dr. 

Schneider brought up that we spend more than twice as much 

money as any other OECD country. I read that in your material 

and I made a note to say something about it. I want to give you 

one little example of my own experience at the community college 

where I worked. 

I went in one day—I do not remember exactly how long I had 

been there, but I went into the registrar one day and I have—we 

served three counties, primarily three counties and we had three 

high schools. And I went into the registrar and I said I would like 

to look at completion data by high school. And she said to me, we 

do not record which high school the students come from when they 

enroll here. I almost fell on the floor. 

I thought we collect thousands of pieces of information. And to 

me the most basic piece of information you would have collected 

would have been which high school are these students graduating 

from? And we did not do that. It blew my mind. It just—you know 
53 

I am not a statistician although I love dealing with data. And that 

just shocked me. 

And I think, again, that the American public is probably very— 

would be very surprised to hear so much of what you have talked 

about today. We have so much data, and we seem to know so little. 

What a tragedy for all the money that we are spending in this 

country. Yes, we have I think the greatest higher education system 

in the world. And I want to see it stay that way. 

And I also want the consumers to get the best information that 

they can get so they can be making good decisions. So, it occurred 

to me as you all were talking, especially Dr. Schneider, maybe we 

need a consumer union like the consumer union we have on products out there for people. Maybe somebody will start a consumer 

union and they will test all these products, meaning the universities and colleges. And then publish real reports that tell people 

what is going on. 

But anyway, I want to say thank you all very much for being 

here today and providing such enlightening testimony, both written 

and verbally. 

There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 
54 
55 

Dr. Fitzsimmons’ Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

1. If you could eliminate any data collection or reporting requirements currently 

collected by the federal government, which ones would you select and why? 

If I could eliminate one regulation, it would be the federal definition of credit 

hour. Let me say that I am deeply appreciative of the work of this committee in 

moving repeal legislation through the House. This federal definition is causing 

havoc for accreditors, is unnecessary, and not an appropriate federal role. The whole 

debate makes one feel like the federal government doesn’t know how to enforce the 

rules it has, or to detect fraud and abuse, so is flailing around into academic issues 

instead. 

2. Are there data elements your institution, state or accrediting agency is collecting 

or reporting that are different from what the federal government currently collects 

or includes on College Navigator? Do you have suggestions about ways in which the 

federal government could streamline its data collection and reporting requirements 

with what you are already required to provide to your state or accrediting agency? 

It is difficult to answer this question precisely, as the individuals on campus who 

are responsible for collecting data often do not know the source of the requirement. 

There are, of course, some differences. For example, one regional accrediting agency asks for Fall full-time enrollment (FTE), while IPEDS asks for an annual 
56 

unduplicated FTE. The accreditor also requests more detailed information about faculty than is requested by the federal government. 

In general, slight differences in reporting requirements among different entities 

are not the main concern I’ve heard—particularly when the reason for the difference 

seems clear (i.e. an accreditor does have reason to take a closer look at faculty). 

Rather, the concern is the sheer volume of requirements—and the fact they grow 

with every new law and every new regulation and every new departmental interpretation. 

Even if overlapping requirements were the biggest problem, attempts to address 

it could well lead to a cure that is worse than the disease. I say this because it 

seems that the only way to achieve consistency among the federal government, 

states, and accreditation agencies would be to develop uniform requirements. Of necessity, this would have to be done at the national level. I’m not convinced that 

would be wise—as the likely outcome would either be collecting too little information that a state or accreditor may need for a specific purpose or collecting too much, 

simply because the federal mechanism for doing so is in place. To a great extent, 

I believe this has happened with College Navigator. 

Also, taking on the overlaps among the federal government, 50 separate states 

and the multitude of regional, national, and specialized accreditation agencies would 

quickly become overwhelming. It would make more sense to begin by looking at the 

overlaps within federal requirements or at the overlaps within the Department of 

Education itself. A good start would be funding the National Research Council study 

authorized in the Higher Education Opportunity Act—as has been done in the Senate version of the appropriations bill for the Department of Education. In addition, 

the idea presented by Mark Schneider at the hearing regarding ‘‘cleaning the attic’’ 

with respect to IPEDS data is certainly worth exploring. 

3. Are the federal government, states, and institutions currently providing the information students and their parents really want and need to make the right postsecondary choices? If not, what information should they be providing? Do you believe 

that students and families can be provided with too much information on their postsecondary options? In other words, is too much data problematic or confusing? 

As illustrated by the pile of reports regarding Shenandoah University I brought 

to the hearing, there’s plenty of information out there. Different people want to 

know different things, and governments and institutions try to be responsive. However, once the government ‘‘starts a list,’’ so to speak, it gets hard to resist the temptation to add to it. College Navigator, which can be a great resource, can also be 

overwhelming. As I said in my testimony, it’s TMI! 

Another example is the new reporting requirements coming out of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, possibly soon to be augmented by legislation in both the House 

and Senate. I wholeheartedly support our providing information that helps veterans 

to make smart choices, but presenting them with mounds of minute detail is not 

going to help. If we could at least use what we have before we require even more, 

we would have made a huge step in the right direction. 

Now, on top of that, we’re getting three new administrative initiatives: the College 

Scorecard, the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, and the Aid offer Comparison Tool. 

Colleges are being asked to adopt them basically ‘‘sight-unseen.’’ 

4. Are there more appropriate or accessible ways the federal government can 

present outcome data to students, parents, and taxpayers? 

Yes, and I think this would be a great federal role. We have so many great colleges in this country, and so many different types, families can be overwhelmed with 

the choices. It would be great if the federal government could help colleges and students find each other. 

This question was posed in the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 

In response, NAICU worked with the staff on this committee and the Senate education committee to develop what became U-CAN. We gathered the ideas coming out 

of the Administration and Congress, consulted broadly with our members, and ran 

focus groups of parents and students. 

A big challenge, per your earlier question, was keeping the amount of data presented to a reasonable level. We addressed that by setting a firm rule that the final 

product could not exceed 2 pages; and we dropped ideas if parents and students 

weren’t interested in the information. Other items, such as the community information on page 2, were added because that was something they wanted that hadn’t 

appeared on any of the policy lists. 

5. I agree with a lot of what you said during the hearing in terms of making sure 

institutional accountability and academic freedom remain in place. However, I’m 

also mindful of the vast amount of taxpayer dollars the federal government devotes 

to higher education. Many policymakers question what we are getting for that invest-
57 

ment. How would you answer that question, particularly during a time when we 

have to make some tough choices about the future of student aid programs? 

First and foremost, I want to say how deeply appreciative colleges are for all 

Congess has done to stick by low-income students during the recent economic downturn. As I said in my prepared testimony, I KNOW it is working because I know 

the students it has helped. I also know the federal budget is in a very, very difficult 

hole and every dollar has to be spent wisely. 

I will skip the soft answer here—the one about human dignity and dreams and 

democracy—although I think it is most important. When you have to justify federal 

spending, you need some hard facts. So, here is what you are getting for our maximum Pell Grant investment of a little more than $22,000 for the poorest student 

to get through college in four years: 

• Demographically, that student is likely to be the first in his/her family to go 

to college. If either parent had gone to college, it is likely he or she wouldn’t be poor 

enough to qualify for the grant. 

• That student is exponentially less likely to ever need federal assistance in all 

its forms, if he or she finishes college, and the change is generational. In other 

words, the graduate’s children are less likely to ever need government assistance, 

including Pell Grants. 

• On average, the student who completes college will earn more and pay more 

taxes—past census data long ago put the figure at a million dollar differential in 

lifetime earnings, with varying private analyses claiming higher or lower differentials. A million dollars more in earnings on a $22,000 federal investment at even 

a 15 percent tax rate provides an awesome return. 

• It is estimated that increases in national educational attainment have accounted for almost 30 percent of the growth in national income in the 20th century. 

• Your federal investment leverages many other resources: state aid, institutional 

aid, and private scholarship money. You are only the first domino in our national 

effort to let those who work hard earn their way out of poverty. 
58 
59 

Dr. Hallmark’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

1. Are there data reporting requirements I would delete? 

In response to this prompt, I surveyed the Institution Research officers within the 

A&M System and none of these officers reported any difficulty in easily and promptly reporting the necessary data (referring to NCES/IPEDS data). Current Federal 

reporting is not problematic. 

Furthermore, current data reported through NCES/IPEDS is useful for making 

decisions. As is noted in response to subsequent questions, we do believe some improvements are warranted. 

2. Differences in state, system, federal reporting, and recommendations for improvement, including additional data to be collected. 

I solicited responses from A&M System Institution Research officers. A few observations from these directors (arranged and edited for clarity): 

• IPEDS focuses on students’ headcount rather than on students’ course-taking 

activities, such as semester credit hour production (SCH). 

• SCH data helps predict/understand graduation/persistence rates and other performance measures. 

• SCH data helps institutions prepare for course loads/resource allocation. 

• Headcount is not particularly useful in charting either student performance or 

resource allocation. 
60 

• Measures of student success are limited in IPEDS to persistence and graduation. The A&M System Analytics project delves into more measures such as engagement and learning outcomes. • The IPEDS 12-month period doesn’t exactly fit the normal academic year defined by a typical public semester university. It also does not use the same period 

as in our state reports. This requires effort to consolidate enrollment of semesters 

and sessions. • Data definitions between the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and 

IPEDS are not the same. They are similar, but not identical, requiring adjustment 

as they report the same data to the state and to the Federal Government (race/ethnicity is a good example). • If data definitions are aligned, it would be useful to have the option to enter 

at the State level and let it feed up to the Federal level as a batch State submission 

or conversely from the Federal level down. 

3. Are we providing information students and parents find useful? Is there such 

a thing as ‘‘too much’’ information? 

The information currently collected and provided is useful for students and parents. I will, however, assert the information is not in a useful format nor are the 

terms easily understood, particularly for first generation students/families. 

The data, for example, may only include students who are first time in college. 

Students may assume based on the data that the ‘‘average’’ student will graduate 

in X number of years. However, the reported data only applies to first time full time 

enrollees, which may constitute only a portion of the total student population (in 

many cases, a small portion of the student population). A student could discern this 

caveat, but is not likely to do so without significant prior knowledge and understanding of how the data works, and even then only with knowledge of what other 

data to consider. 

A project more useful to parents and students than collecting new data would be 

to transform existing data into more user friendly formats. I do believe the current 

IPEDS data reported/collected is useful for parents and students. A more visually 

appealing presentation of the data would be useful, with a focus on terms understandable to the consumer of the information. 

More data is not necessarily more useful. It would be easy to overwhelm the consumer with so much data it is difficult for them to discern that which is important. 

They can easily be ‘‘buried’’ in the data such that they ‘‘give up’’ on finding that 

which they need. Our approach in the A&M System Analytics project (which is not 

primarily targeted to parents/students but rather to Regents/Legislators) is to separate out ‘‘Governance’’ metrics so that the viewer can go directly to those metrics 

most pertinent to their interests. A similar approach may be useful on other 

projects, where ‘‘tabs’’ on the website may direct consumers to the information relevant to them, thus cutting through data overload. 

4. What kind of manpower is needed to comply with data needs? 

Largely, the reporting is automated requiring relatively little manpower. The 

greatest attention must come from negotiating the differences in definitions such 

that the appropriate data is submitted specific to that report. As noted above, if the 

definitions were consistent across reports it might be possible for one report to be 

submitted and all entities pull data from the one database (e.g., some sort of omnibus database for multiple uses). This would save time and effort. 

Some data collection organizations (such as VSA, Achieving the Dream & NSSE) 

have shifted data collection away from survey form entry to data flat file uploads, 

allowing the institution’s data collection processes to focus on validation of requested reporting variables instead of running numerous summary extractions and 

placing individual numbers on multiple survey forms. This process streamlines the 

data collection and reporting processes, with institution-level efforts focusing on TSQL script programming and less on presentation. Organizations relying on the flat 

file submissions, which is what NCES used for the recent NPSAS (National Postsecondary Student Aid Study), would then upload the flat files for inclusion into a 

database that could provide for the extraction and presentation of survey variables. 

I cannot provide useful feedback regarding the VSA, as VSA reports are submitted by the institutions and not the System. IR officers in the A&M System report 

VSA is not particularly time consuming due to the automation mentioned above. 

The A&M System Analytics project has been time consuming at the System offices. Since approximately April 1, one data analyst has devoted appropriately 1⁄4

of his time to this project and the ‘‘lead senior software developer’’ has devoted approximately 75% of his time to the project. Six additional individuals (all holding 

professional positions) in the A&M System offices have devoted varying amounts of 

time to the project (e.g., additional programming, web design, accounting, adminis-
61 

trative). It is important to note that this accounts only for time and effort at the 

central System offices. Each institution has contributed data. For most institutions, 

the contact person has been the provost/VPAA and the Institutional Research officer. I estimate that each has devoted a measurable but insignificant amount of time 

to the project, as the vast majority of data has been pulled from existing reports. 

This is possible only because Texas has a robust reporting system, allowing us to 

tap into existing reports to create our analytics site. 

It is important to note that the above time allocations have primarily been invest 

in transforming existing data into more usable forms. If we were creating new data 

(which we anticipate doing in the coming months), the amount of time would/will 

increase commensurate with the project. 
62 

Dr. Schneider’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

Following my testimony before you subcommittee on 20 September 2012, you 

asked me to address three questions: 

1. If I could eliminate any data collection or reporting requirement currently collected by the federal government, which ones would I select and why? 

2. What specific components of IPEDS do I think are the most useful? Which data 

elements should be reconsidered or reformed? 

3. What data points should the federal government request from the states? What 

lessons could the federal government learn from the states in terms of streamlining 

its data collections? 

I answer these questions below. 

1. Reducing the burden of data collection 

I will answer both of these questions from the perspective of the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES), the agency whose data collections I have the most 

direct experience. I will start with IPEDS because this is the single largest data collection that postsecondary institutions are subject to, and the one that is most often 

at the center of complaint about burden. 

Like IPEDS’ antiquarian focus on first-time, full-time beginning students when it 

measures student success in college, other parts of IPEDS seem to be the equivalent 

of an archeological dig revealing layers upon layers of measures created by civiliza-
63 

tions long gone. Many of the data items in IPEDS were created in response to what 

seemed like a good idea years ago or in response to legislation that is in need of 

updating, given the rapidly changing nature of American society and America’s college. 

A critical step in modernizing IPEDS is to make better use the inventory of what 

is required by law or regulation that appears in The History and Origins of Survey 

Items for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System http://nces.ed.gov/ 

pubs2012/2012833.pdf 

Taking this step is essential, since many items that campuses now report are 

rooted in legislation and NCES or the Department of Education cannot simply stop 

collecting the data or stop requiring campuses to report them. In the upcoming reauthorization of the HEA, with a firm sense of the basis for IPEDS items, Congress 

will be in a far better position to clean house. 

The second step is to determine empirically which measures in IPEDS are used, 

by tracking the frequency of which measures are downloaded from the IPEDS data 

center. This empirical evidence could and should act as guidance for what can be 

removed from IPEDS. This is especially true if unused items are not rooted in legislation or regulations. 

In terms of low hanging fruit, I believe that most of the human resources survey 

is burdensome (NCES estimates over 25 hours on average to complete) and not 

often used—but this supposition could be verified empirically. But even if the survey 

is not used, as made clear in The History and Origins of Survey Items report referenced above, most of its items are rooted in legislative requirements and NCES 

can’t simply stop administering the survey without Congressional action. Also, soon 

information on academic libraries will begin to be collected by IPEDS. The federal 

interest in collecting this information is at best minimal. I suggest that it not be 

added. 

While some items and perhaps some surveys can be dropped, others can be improved. Most notably, IPEDS finance data are among the most important data 

IPEDS collects but they are flawed. Some of this is rooted in GASB v. FASB reporting requirements—but also because institutions report similar expenditures in different categories, making comparability difficult. This is a particular problem given 

the different reporting categories used across the for-profit, not for profit and public 

sectors. As a quick indicator of the problem, consider that both public and not-forprofit institutions each report their expenses per FTE in seven categories, while forprofit institutions use only three reporting categories. Given the growth of the forprofit sector, the lack of comparability is a serious problem that has been recognized 

and some progress on this front may soon be coming. But given the centrality of 

these data, we need to monitor this carefully. 

Given existing technology, many institutions impose heavier burdens on themselves than necessary. Far too few data reporters take advantage of technology options that could help reduce burden. A surprising number of data reporters enter 

the data screen-by-screen rather than in any of several automated routes provided 

by NCES. 

Most institutions of higher education have their data systems handled by a small 

number of providers. These vendors have been slow to build modules onto their systems that might assist institutions in more easily reporting IPEDS data. However, 

NCES’ current work to link IPEDS aggregate data elements back to Common Education Data Standards (student-level data elements) should allow vendors to use 

technology more effectively to reduce reporting burden, but only if the vendors find 

a financial incentive to do so. 

Some of these technological fixes will show up shortly, others are here already. 

Nonetheless, some of the burden of IPEDS results from the fact that institutions 

must aggregate their data to fill in specific cells rather than report individual level 

data. I understand the concerns about the federal government holding student level 

data. However, there are solutions to this problem—including having states de-identify data before sharing with the federal government and new statistical techniques 

that can create ‘‘synthetic data sets’’ that mimic the original data but are divorced 

from personally identifiable information. 

Approaching any data set that contains sensitive personal information presents 

both benefits and risks to any government holding these data. And at the current 

time, the federal government has decided that the risks outweigh the benefits. However, it is important for Congress to periodically consider the changing balance between risks and benefits. The coming reauthorization of HEA presents such an opportunity. 

The benefits are clear—more accurate and more comprehensive measures of student success. We need to consider the risks in relationship to these benefits—and 

we need to see how far we can ameliorate these risks to reach a point where Con-
64 

1The reports can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010831rev 

and http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NPEC2012831. 

gress might feel comfortable with something like the Wyden/Rubio/Hunter Know Before You Go proposed legislation. 

2. Disclosure requirements 

So far, I have discussed reporting requirements, I believe that Congress should 

investigate further how campuses treat disclosure requirements. I suspect that colleges and universities are all too often treating these informational items casually. 

Systematic evidence of this is found in a report by Kevin Carey and Andrew Kelly 

in November 2011 on institutional conformity with six disclosure rules. Entitled The 

Truth Behind Higher Education Disclosure Laws http:// 

www.thecollegesolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/HigherEdDisclosure— 

RELEASE.pdf, Carey and Kelly found that compliance was often quite weak—most 

notably, only around a quarter of the schools disclosed the six-year graduation rate 

for students who receive a Pell Grant. 

Another area in which colleges and universities have been less than forthright 

concerns Net Price Calculators, which are supposed to be displayed on campus 

websites. 

I have spent hours on many campus websites looking for these calculators—and 

many of my friends have done the same thing, either for professional reasons or because they have children who are applying for college. There is agreement that 

while the letter of the law is being followed, the spirit of the law is all too frequently 

violated. On many web sites it can take as many as 10 ‘‘clicks’’ to find the Net Price 

Calculator and many of the calculators seem unnecessarily burdensome. 

Given how important consumer information is to making our system of higher 

education work, Congress has rightly determined that some important information 

needs to be disclosed by institutions. Congress needs to determine how well that information is being conveyed to the public. 

The National Postsecondary Education Cooperative issued two reports trying to 

provide guidance to institutions on how to make these consumer information disclosures easier to find, but as the second report indicates, the colleges still seem to fail 

to present the info in a way that allows it to be easily compared across institutions.1

I would recommend that institutions be provided a template that outlines specifically how the information should be made available on websites and be presented 

consistently across institutions. (NPEC is working on such a voluntary disclosure 

template now). 

Finally, Congress could suggest that ED develop a set of standardized micro-data 

tags that could be written into the html of institutions websites that would tag each 

data item and make it easier (1) to find via web searches and (2) to be collected 

and aggregated by researchers or other through web scraping technology. This is a 

far less burdensome option than turning all disclosure requirements into reporting 

requirements, which some suggest should be done—and would open up the data for 

creative aggregation and use by researchers and private companies. 

3. State data systems 

Many states hold student level data and these data could and should be used to 

generate more accurate measures of student success and cover far more students 

than covered by IPEDS. These state data systems can also be more effectively used 

to populate IPEDS reducing the burden on campuses. We may need to make it clear 

legislatively or regulation that states can act as delegated agents of institutions to 

populate IPEDS may 

As Congress considers more complete measures of student success both while in 

school and after graduation, state data systems will play a central role. For example, as we move toward providing students with more information about the likely 

earnings outcomes of their college degrees, the nation will need to tap into state 

held unemployment insurance data that will allow us to map earnings data (held 

in state UI data systems) onto student level data (held by state student unit record 

systems). However, in work that I am doing with these linked data in several states, 

we have found that only about half of the graduates in a student unit record system 

are matched in the state unemployment insurance record system. This match rate 

is driven by several factors, but one the likely largest contributing factor is interstate mobility: because state UI data do not cover students who graduated within 

a state but are now working in another state, many students are not found. The 

Congress should thoroughly review progress on the Workforce Records Interchange 

System (WRIS II) to see if this could increase coverage. My impression is that 
65 

WRIS-II is under-used and most people working for state higher education agencies 

have little or no knowledge of this federally financed resource. 

State data systems also vary in coverage. States with student unit records systems cover public institutions (although sometimes, as in California, there may be 

several systems), some cover not-for-profit IHEs, but I don’t know of any that cover 

for-profit colleges and universities. 

The federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build state 

longitudinal data systems. It behooves the Congress to see that the nation sees a 

commensurate reward to that investment. One area in which the rewards can be 

realized is through reducing burden on institutions by having state data systems 

do more reporting for more students, more institutions, and better measures. The 

Congress should also investigate the extent to which these hundreds of millions of 

federal taxpayer dollars has actually been used to improve the flow of consumer information to students and their families to allow them to more wisely choose postsecondary institutions that are better doing their job of educating students who go 

on to be productive members of our society. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ