DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is the Price of College?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is the Price of College? Americans are concerned about the price of college. About three- STATS IN BRIEF quarters of Americans believe that college U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DECEMBER 2019 NCES 2020-470 is not affordable for everyone who needs it (Lumina Foundation and Gallup 2016). Such attitudes may reflect the year-over- year increase in college expenses since 1981 (Snyder, de Brey, and Dillow 2017) and the decreasing proportion of college What Is the Price costs that are covered by the maximum Pell Grant award, an important form of federal student financial aid (Cahalan and of College? Perna 2015). To finance the cost of college attendance, undergraduate students are increasingly likely to take out loans, Total, Net, and Out-of-Pocket including private, Stafford, Direct PLUS Prices in 2015–16 Loans (Woo and Velez 2016; Horn and Paslov 2014). Scholars have raised concerns that the amount of debt borne by recent college graduates may delay the attainment of milestones associated with AUTHORS PROJECT OFFICER Courtney A. Moore David Richards adulthood later in life, such as buying a Albert Y. Liu National Center for Education Statistics house, getting married, and having Catharine Warner-Griffin children (Brown, Caldwell, and Sutherland Jackson Miller 2014; Gallup and Purdue University 2015; Insight Policy Research Looney and Yannelis 2015). Students can choose among colleges of various institution controls and levels and face systematically different prices as a result (Radwin and Wei 2015; Wei 2010). Control is a classification of whether the institution is publicly or privately funded and operated, and level is a classification Statistics in Brief publications present descriptive data in of whether the institution offers programs tabular formats to provide useful information to a broad audience, that are 4 years or longer, at least 2 including members of the general public. They address simple and but fewer than 4 years, or fewer than topical issues and questions. They do not investigate more complex hypotheses, account for inter-relationships among variables, or This report was prepared for the National Center for support causal inferences. We encourage readers who are Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-16-A- interested in more complex questions and in-depth analysis to 0008/0002 with Insight Policy Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations explore other NCES resources, including publications, online data does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. tools, and public- and restricted-use datasets. See nces.ed.gov and references noted in the body of this document for more information. 2 years.1 In the 2011–12 school year, repaid or earned. Because the rising DATA AND METHODS students attending public two-year price of attending public and private The findings in this report are based on institutions faced the lowest prices and postsecondary institutions is a factor the 2015–16 National Postsecondary those attending private nonprofit affecting student debt (Woo 2013), a Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16). 4-year institutions faced the highest fourth measure is out-of-pocket net Conducted by the National Center for prices, even after accounting for price minus all aid except student Education Statistics (NCES), NPSAS:16 is financial aid (Radwin and Wei 2015). loans, which provides an indication of a comprehensive, nationally the price at the time of attendance plus representative survey of STUDY QUESTIONS the principal loan amount in the survey undergraduate and graduate students This Statistics in Brief updates previous year. The measure, which does not enrolled in postsecondary institutions studies of college prices (Radwin and include interest payments associated that are eligible to distribute student Wei 2015; Wei 2010) by examining with student loans because such costs aid under Title IV of the Higher multiple measures of the price of are not definitively known until Education Act. The target population college attendance for students in the repayment is complete, was not consists of about 20 million 2015–16 school year. The first measure included in prior studies but has been undergraduate students and 4 million is the total price of attendance, which added to this report due to rising graduate students enrolled at eligible is the sum of tuition and nontuition policy interest in the burden of student postsecondary institutions in the expenses. Because many students loans. Each measure provides a 50 states, the District of Columbia, and receive grants and other aid to cover different perspective on the price of Puerto Rico any time between July 1, the total price of attendance, this college attendance, and each may 2015, and June 30, 2016. report also presents some alternative affect the enrollment decisions made Approximately 89,000 undergraduates measures of the price of college by prospective students. and 24,000 graduate students in attendance. The second measure is the NPSAS:16 provided information about This report will examine the price of net price after grant aid, which is the how they financed their postsecondary college by addressing the following total price of attendance minus all education. federal, state, institutional, and private research questions: source grants. Grant aid, including The sample used in this report is 1. What are the average prices for full- scholarships and tuition waivers, limited to undergraduates who are time undergraduates, by institution generally does not need to be earned enrolled full time for the full academic control and level? through work or repaid. The third year (at least 9 months) at a single measure is the out-of-pocket net price 2. How do the components of average academic institution, referred to as “full minus all aid, which represents the total and net price of attendance time” throughout this report. Full-time amount students and their families experienced by students vary by students, who make up 37.7 percent of face at the time of attendance. This institution control and level? all students at Title IV schools, face measure differs from the second higher prices relative to part-time 3. How do the net prices for full-time measure by subtracting all other aid, students (Campbell and Bentz independent and dependent such as loans, work study, job training forthcoming). Because the proportion undergraduates vary by income and grants, military tuition aid, and of full-time students varies by institution control and level? veterans’ benefits that usually must be institution control and level, restricting 1 To learn more about the types of institutions, visit the online college search tool, College Navigator, at http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator. 2 the sample to full-time students of institutions or enrolled in more than by systematically different types facilitates more valid comparisons of one institution. of students. prices across different types of colleges. Any systematic differences in In some instances, estimates are also All comparisons of estimates were prices would not be due instead to presented by the dependency status tested for statistical significance systematic differences in attendance and associated income of the student. using the Student’s t statistic, and patterns. Independent students include those only differences that are statistically who are age 24 or older and those who significant at the p < .05 level are Estimates are presented by institution are under 24 who are married, have discussed in the report. No control and level. The analysis in this dependents, are veterans or on active adjustments were made for multiple report focuses on public 2-year duty, are orphans or wards of the comparisons, and the comparisons institutions, public 4-year institutions, courts, are homeless or at risk of reported do not present an exhaustive private for-profit institutions, and homelessness, or have been list of all statistically significant results private nonprofit 4-year institutions. determined to be independent by a from the study. Readers are cautioned Public 2-year institutions enrolled financial aid officer using professional against drawing causal inferences 16 percent of undergraduates, while judgment. Other undergraduates based on the results presented as public 4-year institutions enrolled under age 24 are considered to be the study design is descriptive in 44 percent and private nonprofit 4-year dependent. The income used for nature. Appendix A contains standard institutions enrolled 22 percent (table financially dependent students is errors for all estimates presented 1). Private for-profit institutions, which family income, while the income used in this report. include less-than-2-year, 2-year, and for financially independent students is 4-year colleges and universities, student income, including the spouse’s enrolled 6 percent of undergraduates. income if relevant. Separate estimates The remaining 13 percent of by dependency status allow for an undergraduates enrolled in other types examination of the price of college TABLE 1. UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT, TUITION, AND TOTAL PRICE for full-time, full-year undergraduates, by institution control and level: 2015–16 Institution control and level Percentage distribution Average tuition1 Average total price1 Total 100.00 $15,900 $30,500 Public 2-year 15.7 $3,800 $16,100 Public 4-year 44.2 $11,800 $26,900 Private for-profit2 6.0 $17,600 $32,600 Private nonprofit 4-year 21.6 $32,800 $48,000 Other, or more than one institution 12.5 $11,500 $27,500 1 Tuition includes all tuition and fees. Average tuition and average total price of attendance estimates are shown for those attending only one institution. 2 Private for-profit institutions include less-than-2-year, 2-year, and 4-year institutions. NOTE: Full-time status for the purposes of financial aid eligibility is based on 12 credit hours, unless the awarding institution employs a different standard. Students are considered to have attended for a full year if they are enrolled for 9 or more months during the academic year. Months do not have to be contiguous and students do not have to be enrolled for a full month to be considered enrolled for that month.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2004
    Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2004 Survey of Earned Doctorates SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION HIGHLIGHTS This report presents data on recipients of research doctorates awarded by U.S. universities from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004. This information is taken from the 2004 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), an annual census of new doctorate recipients. • The 419 universities in the United States that conferred research doctorates awarded 42,155 doctorates during the 2003-2004 academic year (the eligibility period for the 2004 SED), an increase of 3.4 percent from the 40,770 doctorates awarded in 2003, and the highest number since the all-time high of 42,647 in 1998. • The number of doctorates awarded by broad field in 2004 was greatest in life sciences, which conferred 8,819 Ph.D.s. The numbers in the other broad areas were 6,795 in social sciences; 6,635 in education; 6,049 in physical sciences and mathematics (combined); 5,776 in engineering; 5,467 in humanities; and 2,614 in business and other professional fields. • Women received 19,098 doctorates, or 45 percent of all doctorates granted in 2004. This is very similar to last year’s percentage for women. Women earned 50 percent of the doctorates granted in life sciences, 55 percent in social sciences, 52 percent in humanities, 66 percent in education, and 46 percent in business/other professional fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a New Academic Institution: the Singapore University of Technology and Design
    CHAPTER 7 Building a New Academic Institution: the Singapore University of Technology and Design Thomas L. Magnanti The creation of any new university provides an opportunity to build upon the great traditions of higher education as well as to do some things differently, even challenge elements of the status quo. This chapter describes the creation of the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), a university established in collaboration with MIT that, in its design and aspirations, seeks to model MIT, a technically-oriented innovator in education and research that embraces both scholarship and practice. SUTD was established in a mature national environment of higher education alongside several world class institutions. It was intended to provide an alternative path for students, utilizing a distinctive footprint and distinctive approach to education. From the outset, SUTD strived to rethink many elements of a modern technically-oriented university. It was founded with a unique organizational and degree structure, without traditional departments or schools. It abandoned large lectures and instead embraced a hands-on, active learning approach to education, organized around cohort-based learning communities. Its approaches to education and research as well as its facility design and space allocation have been crafted to foster “multidisciplinarity.” It even abandoned the agrarian academic year calendar. It has been developed to date in what might be thought of as four phases: 1 Conception and founding (August 2007–January 2010). Development of the overall footprint, basic organizational structure, blueprint for undergraduate education, and governance structure, as well as collaborations with MIT and Zhejiang University. 2 Early development (January 2010–May 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • SACSCOC Resource Manual for Principles of Accreditation
    RESOURCE MANUAL for The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges 2020 Edition RESOURCE MANUAL for The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement 1866 Southern Lane Decatur, GA 30033-4097 www.sacscoc.org SACSCOC Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Third Edition Published: 2020 Statement on Fair Use The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) recognizes that for purposes of compliance with its standards, institutions and their representatives find it necessary from time to time to quote, copy, or otherwise reproduce short portions of its handbooks, manuals, Principles of Accreditation, and other publications for which SACSCOC has protection under the Copyright Statute. An express application of the Copyright Statute would require these institutions to seek advance permission for the use of these materials unless the use is deemed to be a “fair use” pursuant to 17 USC §107. This statement provides guidelines to institutions and their representatives as to what uses of these materials SACSCOC considers to be “fair use” so as not to require advance permission. SACSCOC considers quotation, copying, or other reproduction (including electronic reproduction) of short portions (not to exceed 250 words) of its handbooks, manuals, Principles of Accreditation, and other publications by institutions of higher education and their representatives for the purpose of compliance with SACSCOC’s standards to be fair use and not to require advance permission from SACSCOC. The number of copies of these quotations must be limited to 10. Representatives of institutions shall include employees of the institutions as well as independent contractors, such as attorneys, accountants, and consultants, advising the institution concerning compliance with SACSCOC’s standards.
    [Show full text]
  • My Education Participant Guide
    2019-2020 TAP CURRICULUM MANAGING YOUR EDUCATION Table of Contents Section 1: Getting Started .................................................................... 2 Section 2: Learning the Basics .............................................................. 4 Section 3: Choosing a Field of Study .................................................... 25 Section 4: Choosing an Institution ....................................................... 39 Section 5: Gaining Admission.............................................................. 53 Section 6: Funding Your Education ...................................................... 68 MY Education Website Guide 2019-2020 ....................................... 101 Career Exploration Chart ................................................................... 106 Comparison Chart ............................................................................. 107 MY Education | Page 1 Managing Your (MY) Education Section 1: Getting Started Your decision to complete the DoD Education Track by participating in this workshop shows you have recognized the potential benefits of higher education for your career. Higher education is a pathway that can help you access new opportunities and can be a prerequisite for a number of jobs in the U.S. economy. This two-day workshop, which is designed for anyone interested in earning either an undergraduate or graduate degree, will assist you in identifying the education requirements for your desired career and provide you with information, resources, and strategies
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Institution Implementation Agreement the Online Academy Positive Behavior Support Team the University of Kansas Server Contract
    Academic Institution Implementation Agreement The Online Academy Positive Behavior Support Team The University of Kansas Server Contract The University Affiliated Program in collaboration with the Beach Center on Families and Disability agrees to make the Online Academy Positive Behavior Support modules ("Modules") available to ("Server Hosting Organization") for instructional and technical assistance purposes within the Research and Training Center on Positive Behavior Support and the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports. The Modules will be made available for downloading to a server at no cost to the institution/organization for the Modules as long as an institutional commitment to implement the Modules is made in accordance with the Conditions of Implementation set out below. Conditions of Implementation: 1. The Modules or lessons may be offered as independent courses or integrated into regularly offered courses or as part of staff development efforts. 2. Password protection will be provided to control access to the Modules allowing only students who have signed contracts with an instructor recognized by the Online Academy PBS group. 3. The Modules shall not be offered for Continuing Education credit. 4. The pricing policies of the Server Hosting Organization shall apply in the offering of the Modules. 5. The Server Hosting Organization may add its name and course identification to the modules in order to meet its enrollment needs; however, the University of Kansas credits for the development and design of the Modules must remain as embedded in the Modules. 6. No modifications shall be permitted to the content of the Module. The Modules, however, maybe used in total or in part.
    [Show full text]
  • Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2015, Technical Notes
    Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2015 Technical Notes Data presented in Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2015 were collected by the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED). The survey is sponsored by six federal agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Education (ED), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This report presents the summary of these survey data. Survey Overview (2015 survey cycle) Purpose. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) collects data on the number and characteristics of individuals receiving research doctoral degrees from U.S. academic institutions. Data collection authority. The information collected by the SED is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The Office of Management and Budget control number is 3145-0019, expiration date 30 June 2016. Survey contractor. NORC at the University of Chicago. Survey sponsors. The SED is sponsored by NSF, NIH, ED, USDA, NEH, and NASA. Key Survey Information Frequency. Annual. Initial survey year. Academic year 1957–58. Reference period. The academic year 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015. Response unit. Individuals. Sample or census. Census. Population size. Approximately 55,000. Sample size. Not applicable. Survey Design Target population. The population for the 2015 SED consists of all individuals receiving a research doctorate from a U.S. academic institution in the 12-month period beginning 1 July 2014 and ending 30 June 2015. A research doctorate is a doctoral degree that (1) requires completion of an original intellectual contribution in the form of a dissertation or an equivalent culminating project (e.g., musical composition) and (2) is not primarily intended as a degree for the practice of a profession.
    [Show full text]
  • May Plato's Academy Be Considered As the First Academic Institution?
    Center for Open Access in Science ▪ https://www.centerprode.com/ojsh.html Open Journal for Studies in History, 2019, 2(2), 35-42. ISSN (Online) 2620-066X ▪ https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojsh.0202.02035s _________________________________________________________________________ May Plato’s Academy be Considered as the First Academic Institution? Zhulduz Amangelidyevna Seitkasimova M. Auezov South Kazakhstan State University, KAZAKHSTAN Faculty of Pedagogy and Culture, Shymkent Received 8 November 2019 ▪ Revised 17 December 2019 ▪ Accepted 23 December 2019 Abstract Plato’s Academy is undoubtedly the first higher education institution in history, and in ancient Athens itself represents the most important educational institution. It constituted in the context of the universal development that took place in ancient Athens, in the 5th and 4th century BC, and it continued to work until the Byzantine Emperor Justinian forbade the work of all schools of philosophy (529 AD). This development, which is part of the so-called Golden Age of ancient Athens, represents the period of Greek history in which the foundations of Western civilization originated, as we know it today. Plato appears as one of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece, along with Socrates and Aristotle, to the first of whom appears as a student and to the second as a teacher. Philosophy in the true sense of the word was created in Plato’s era in ancient Athens (Russell, 1975), and Plato’s Academy, in which he, along with his students, talked about various philosophical topics through the Garden of Akademos, was the impetus for this development. There are also opinions that the development of philosophy after Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is only of reproductive character when it comes to the basics of philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Graduate Education Parameters
    C) C -I m m C C) GRADUATE -I 0 EDUCATION -ID U) PARAMETERS -I U) 3 (D LiI CD -' Cl) PUBLIC -I' 0 -' POLICY -D C a. C) -a 0 C) 1< z Cl) w a) CP NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 1969 GRADUATE EDUCATION PARAMETERS PUBLIC POLICY REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 1969 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25 FOREWORD This volume presents the statistical evidence, forward projec­ tions, analyses, and interpretations which underlie the conclusions and recommendations offered in the First Report of the National Science Board entitled Toward a Public Policy for Graduate Edu­ cation in the Sciences. However, this is much more than an ap­ pendix to that Report. It is both a unique analysis of the present status of graduate education and the source of a large body of information and useful correlations which should be invaluable to rational planning for graduate education and indeed for all of higher education. Dr. Lawton M. Hartman, the principal author of this volume, selected the relevant data and recast them for use in both docu­ ments. However, responsibility for this selection of materials and for their analysis is shared by a Committee of the National Science Board. In accepting this document, recommending its publication, and generally endorsing its conclusions, the National Science Board hopes that this identification and analysis of issues with respect to graduate education will facilitate and sharpen local, State, na­ tional and Federal planning for this vital segment of the education system in the next decade.
    [Show full text]
  • The People's Liberation Army's 37 Academic Institutions the People's
    The People’s Liberation Army’s 37 Academic Institutions Kenneth Allen • Mingzhi Chen Printed in the United States of America by the China Aerospace Studies Institute ISBN: 9798635621417 To request additional copies, please direct inquiries to Director, China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 55 Lemay Plaza, Montgomery, AL 36112 Design by Heisey-Grove Design All photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, or under the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for nonprofit educational and noncommercial use. All other graphics created by or for China Aerospace Studies Institute E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/CASI Twitter: https://twitter.com/CASI_Research | @CASI_Research Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CASI.Research.Org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/11049011 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, Intellectual Property, Patents, Patent Related Matters, Trademarks and Copyrights; this work is the property of the U.S. Government. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This publication is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal, academic, or governmental use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete however, it is requested that reproductions credit the author and China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI).
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Archives: Uberlieferungsbildung
    The American Archivist / Vol. 43, No. 4 / Fall 1980 449 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/43/4/449/2746734/aarc_43_4_23436648670625l1.pdf by guest on 24 September 2021 Academic Archives: Uberlieferungsbildung MAYNARD BRICHFORD ARCHIVES—REPOSITORIES AND DOCUMENTS—AND THE ARCHIVISTS who are responsible for them draw their identity from the institutions they serve. Government archivists serve the interests of government and keep the records of governmental activities: war, diplomacy, taxation, legal proceedings, utility regulation, and welfare programs. Business archivists hold records of production, investment, patenting, marketing, and employment. Religious archivists are responsible for the documentation of clerical activities, vital statistics of in- stitutions that record the hatching, matching, and dispatching. Academic archivists retain documentation on teaching, research, public service, and the acculturation of youth. In- stitutions of higher education occupy a unique position of importance and influence in America. A society distinguished for its technology, political institutions, and mass edu- cation needs the continuing scientific examination of its progress and the preparation of a large group of citizens for civic leadership. Academic archivists have a major responsi- bility for Uberlieferungsbildung, the handing down of culture or civilization. The origins of the modern university lie in the medieval university, which has been called the "school of the modern spirit." Charles Haskins stated that "no substitute has been found for the university in its main business, the training of scholars and the main- tenance of the tradition of learning and investigation." Though the early universities drew upon classical culture, the organizational structure is traceable to Bologna, Paris, and Oxford in the middle of the twelfth century.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cambridge Research Horizons
    HRESOEARRCH IZONS In this issue BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION plus objects of devotion, an infrastructure revolution and the making of modern Germany University of Cambridge research magazine www.cam.ac.uk/research/ Issue 17 2 | Guest editorial Contents Issue 17, February 2012 Biodiversity conservation M A R K Research news 3–5 M N I S Z K Spotlight: 6–17 O Biodiversity conservation Research, policy, practice: 6–7 conservation in the round Canopy commerce: forest 8–9 conservation and poverty alleviation The crystal ball of 10 –11 conservation Conservation clusters: 12 making the case Games for nature 13 A lost world? How 14 –15 zooarchaeology can inform biodiversity conservation Landscape, literature, life 16 –17 Cambridge is famous as the centre of ‘Silicon Fen’ – the cluster of high-tech businesses drawn together geographically by the benefits of a world-leading research-intensive University and Preview 18 –19 rich networking opportunities. Much less well known is the fact that Cambridge is home to one of the world’s largest clusters of people and institutions working to understand and Kaiser, Reich and the making conserve global biodiversity. of modern Germany Life on Earth is at risk from an unprecedented rate of environmental change that threatens the natural resources on which humanity depends. Biodiversity – the genes, species and Features 20 –31 ecosystems that comprise nature – provides food, fuel, medicines and other vital ‘ecosystem Autophagy: when 20 –21 services’, along with countless intangible benefits, for society. ‘self-eating’ is good for you But biodiversity is in steep decline, and its sustainable management is a major challenge for the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Collaboration Among System Academic Institutions
    11.01 Collaboration Among System Academic Institutions Approved February 27, 1995 (MO 44-95) Revised September 23, 1999 (MO 226-1999) Revised March 26, 2004 (MO 29-2004) Revised September 26, 2008 (MO 322-2008) Reviewed September 20, 2011 Revised August 8, 2013 (MO 192-2013) Revised November 15, 2018 (MO -2018) Next Scheduled Review: November 15, 2023August 8, 2018 Click to view Revision History. Policy StatementSummary This policy requires that universities (academic institutions) of The Texas A&M University System (system) collaborate in order to most effectively use resources to provide positive outcomes for students and the community Reason for Policy This policy requires that universities will give system (academic institutions) of The Texas A&M University System the impetus to create collaborative agreements between system academic institutions, colleges, departments or degree programs which can provide a higher level of service to students and the community while efficiently using institutional resources. Policyrocedures and Responsibilities 1. Presidents of the system academic institutions are charged to develop collaborative programs that will achieve the highest effective utilization of the resources of the system academic institutions and respond most fully to the needs of students. 2. Individual departments or colleges at any two or more of the system academic institutions are permitted to make collaborative arrangements for handling the programs of study for students enrolled at their institutions. Each collaborative arrangement is to be in written form and must be approved by the president or designee at each system academic institution or by his or her designee. 3. Collaborative arrangements should be based on the principles that course content and quality are mutually acceptable, that facilities are adequate and that details of the arrangements are 11.01 Collaboration Among System Academic Institutions Page 1 of 3 agreed upon in advance of their application.
    [Show full text]