2011 acta report for south carolina

8/3/2019 2011 ACTA Report for South Carolina

1/41

American Council of Trustees and Alumniwith the South Carolina Policy Council

PREPARED IN MINDand Resources?

A Report on Public Higher Education in South Carolina


2/41

A Report on Public Higher Education in South Carolina

American Council o rustees and Alumniwith the South Carolina Policy Council

October 2011

PREPARED IN MINDand Resources?


3/41

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by the staff of the American Council of Trustees and

Alumni, primarily Armand Alacbay and Dr. Michael Poliakoff, in conjunction with the

South Carolina Policy Council (SCPC). ACTA thanks SCPC leadership and staff for

their assistance and gracious cooperation.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni is an independent non-prot

dedicated to academic excellence, academic freedom, and accountability at

Americas colleges and universities. Since its founding in 1995, ACTA has counseled

boards, educated the public, and published reports about such issues as good

governance, historical literacy, core curricula, the free exchange of ideas, and

accreditation. ACTA has previously published Made in Maine: A State Report Card

on Public Higher Education, Here We Have Idaho: A State Report Card on Public Higher

Education, Whats Happening Off the Field?: A Report on Higher Education in the Big 12,

At a Crossroads: A Report Card on Public Higher Education in Minnesota, For the People:

A Report Card on Public Higher Education in Illinois, Show Me: A Report Card on Public

Higher Education in Missouri, Shining the Light: A Report Card on Georgias System of

Public Higher Education, and Governance in the Public Interest: A Case Study of the

University of North Carolina System, among other state-focused reports.

The South Carolina Policy Council, founded in 1986, brings together communityand business leaders from across South Carolina to discuss innovative policy ideas

that advance the principles of limited government and free enterprise. The Council

provides state policymakers up-to-date research, ideas, and analyses on issues such

as education, taxes, environmental policy, and health care.

For further information, please contact:

American Council of Trustees and Alumni

1726 M Street, NW, Suite 802Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202.467.6787

Fax: 202.467.6784

www.goacta.org [email protected]

South Carolina Policy Council

1323 Pendleton Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Phone: 803.779.5022

Fax: 803.779.4953

www.scpolicycouncil.com [email protected]


4/41

Contents

Overview ............................................................................................. 2

Cost & Effectiveness

How much are students paying for college? ......................... 6

How do tuition rates compare to family income?................ 8

Are freshmen returning? .......................................................... 10

Are students graduating and doing so on time? .................12

What are institutions spending money on? .........................14

General Education

What are students actually learning? ...................................20

Governance

Is South Carolinas governance structure effective?..........24

End Notes ......................................................................................... 31

Appendix.......................................................................................... 36


5/412

2011 | AMERICAN COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES AND ALUMNI

Overview

he South Carolina Motto Animis Opibusque Parati, or Prepared in Mindand Resources, underscores the undamental importance the state places

on knowledge and learning; and since 1777, this motto has been a part o the

states Great Seal. Among the Palmetto States resources is a diverse cohort oinstitutions o public higher education, including prestigious research universities,the 45,000student University o South Carolina System, and the nations 13th oldestuniversitythe College o Charleston. With such a variety o public institutionscomes the potential or South Carolina to oer a model system that serves the

maniold needs o 21st

century students, taxpayers, and employers.In recent years public condence in higher education throughout the nation has

allen. Hal o the respondents in a recent Public Agenda survey said that they believecolleges could spend less and still maintain academic quality; 48% agreed that theirstates public college and university system needed to be undamentally overhauled.1

Such erosion o public condence is not surprising in light o major studies o studentlearning. InAcademically Adri, sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa showedthat 45% o college students demonstrated little or no learning gains in critical

thinking, reasoning, and writing skills in the rst two years o college, and a staggering36% ailed to achieve signicant intellectual growth aer our (expensive) years ocollege. Te ederal governments National Assessment o Adult Literacy revealed that26% o ouryear college graduates would have difculty computing the total cost oordering ofce supplies rom a catalog.2

In 2011, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley signed into law the South

Carolina Higher Education Efciency and Administrative Policies Act, maintainingthe transparency and accountability that lead to increased academic quality and

aordability at colleges and universities. It is in this context that ACA oers thisreview o public higher education.

For years, colleges and universities had a simple solution to unding challenges:demand more state money and raise tuition. But increasingly, that approach is not

possible. In the wake o stock market volatility and the crash o the housing market,there has been a growing concern that higher education is in a bubble, with the costo a ouryear degree ar outstripping the benets o acquiring one. In an uncertain

environment, it is imperative that state policymakers ensure that money spent onhigher educationwhether that money comes rom students, parents, donors, or

taxpayersis being expended wisely so that students are graduating with the skills andknowledge they need to succeed. At the same time, it is imperative that policymakers


6/413

PREPARED IN MIND AND RESOURCES? A Report on Public Higher Education in South Carolina

have in place a statewide system that ensures quality and costwith accountability to

the taxpayers o the state.o ascertain how South Carolina higher education is doing in these key areas,

we looked at eight campuses in the states public university system: the Universityo South Carolina (USC) campuses at Columbia, Aiken, Beauort, and Upstate(Spartanburg); Clemson University; South Carolina State University; Coastal

Carolina University; and the College o Charleston. Tese institutions, takentogether, represent not only the geographic breadth o the state but also educate the

vast majority o undergraduate students who are enrolled at South Carolinas ouryear institutions.

First, we examined cost and efectiveness. We asked how much amilies are paying

to attend schools, how the schools are spending that money, and what students aregetting in return. And we ound that this is an area o real concern. From 200506 to201011, instate tuition and ees at institutions in South Carolina increased between18 and 36%. Meanwhile, at only three out o eight campuses did we nd even twothirds o the students receiving a degree within six yearssuggesting that not only istuition going up, but many students are paying well beyond the expected our years,

and even beyond six years. Indeed, less than a quarter o students graduated withinour years at a majority o the institutions studied.

With prices rising, are students getting a quality education? In ar too manyplaces, the answer is no. We examined general educationthose courses usuallycompleted within the rst two years o a bachelors degree program to ensure a

common intellectual background, as well as collegelevel skills critical to success inthe workorce. Here we ound that while over hal o institutions require a majorityo seven core curricular subjects, only three areascomposition, mathematics,and natural or physical scienceare part o the core curricula o the majority oinstitutions. Only one school (College o Charleston) has an intermediateleveloreign language requirement, and only one requires students to take any coursework

in economics (South Carolina State University). Fewer than hal o the institutionsreviewed require a survey course on U.S. government or history, a sad statistic in astate that has such a signicant and illustrious history.

Finally, we turn to South Carolinas higher education governance structure as seenthrough actions by the states Commission on Higher Education (Commission) and

by institutional boards o trustees. Tese boards are responsible or the academic and

nancial wellbeing o the institutions they oversee and or saeguarding the publicinterest. Our examination o structure and outcomes, based on board minutes andother publicly available materials, suggests that South Carolina will never achieve


7/414


an eective, coherent plan to meet the states educational needs o the state until it

overhauls the structure o its boards.Te economic recession that has caused hardship or the nation has occasioned

a rethinking o higher education cost and eectiveness. ACAs hope is that thisreport will be an urgent call to actionto help the citizens and policymakers o SouthCarolina strengthen the states public higher education system and demonstrate

leadership in being Prepared in Mind and Resources.

Anne D. NealPresidentAmerican Council o rustees and Alumni


8/415


COST & EFFECTIVENESS


9/416


For generations, public higher education has opened the door o opportunityto working amilies by oering an aordable alternative to private colleges anduniversities. Increasingly, however, that door is closing. Over the last thirty years,inlationadjusted tuition and ees at public ouryear colleges and universities

nationwide have increased 359%signiicantly more than at private colleges anduniversities. In just the last decade (20012011), inlationadjusted tuition and ees at

public ouryear institutions have gone up on average 5.6% every year.3

he cost o higher education has gone up all over the country, but it has explodedin South Carolina. Inlationadjusted, instate tuition and required ees increaseddramatically over the iveyear period across the institutions reviewed.4 uition at

ouryear institutions o the University o South Carolina System increased anywhere

rom 18 to 34%; similarly, tuition at Clemson, Coastal Carolina, and the College oCharleston rose rom 19 to 36%.

1.How much are students paying

for college?


10/417


TRENDS IN IN-STATE UNDERGRADUATE TUITION & FEES

% Change

Percentage

18%19%

21%

0

5

10

15

20

25

USC-Col

umbia

21%

25%

34%

36%

Clemson

USC-Ups

tate

Coastal

Carolina

USC-Aike

nSC-S

tate

USC-Bea

ufort

Charles

ton

20%

INSTITUTION 2005-06 2010-11 % ChangeClemson University $10,013 $11,908 19%

Coastal Carolina University 7,792 9,390 21

College o Charleston 7,574 10,314 36

South Carolina State University 7,360 9,198 25

University o South CarolinaAiken 6,960 8,424 21

University o South CarolinaBeauort 6,002 8,020 34University o South CarolinaColumbia 8,307 9,786 18

University o South CarolinaUpstate 7,680 9,242 20

Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)Note: 2005 dollar amounts are expressed in 2010 ination-adjusted numbers.


11/418


Increases in college costs are paid or by individuals or amilies who, in many cases,are already straining to pay mortgages and put ood on the table. he charts on theollowing page illustrate the challenge in South Carolina.

In 200506, South Carolina amilies could expect to pay an average o 17.2% o

their household income or annual instate tuition and ees (not including room,board, books or other costs); in 201011, nearly 23% o median household income

was required, a proportional increase o almost onethird, even ater adjusting orinlation. While the median household income in South Carolina dropped by 7.1%rom 2005 to 2010,5 each institution reviewed raised tuition over the same time

period.

he solution or most students and their amilies: everincreasing debt loads.

he Institute or College Access & Success reports that in 2009, 71% o CoastalCarolina graduates borrowed money to pay or school. he average student letcollege with educational debt o $26,646; likewise, students at the Columbia campuso the University o South Carolina incurred an average o $21,755 in debt, whilethe average Clemson University graduate let college with $18,463 in debt.6 hestatewide student debt average o $22,277 in 2009,7 while close to the median o that

in other states, was over 54% o the median household income in South Carolina.8

Such rapid tuition increases make it diicult or students and their amilies to

plan or college expenses. Indeed, at this rate o increase, amilies with children nowbeginning middle school will be expected to pay nearly onequarter o their income tosend just one child to an institution in the South Carolina system. Simply put, tuition

hikes o this magnitude will create havoc in household budgeting.

2.How do tuition rates compare

to family income?


12/419


UNDERGRADUATE TUITION & FEES AS A PERCENTAGE OFMEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

INSTITUTION 2005 2010Change in %

Points % Change

Clemson University 22.3% 28.6% 6.3% 28%

Coastal Carolina University 17.3 22.5 5.2 30

College o Charleston 16.9 24.7 7.9 47

South Carolina State University 16.4 22.1 5.7 35

University o South CarolinaAiken 15.5 20.2 4.7 30

University o South CarolinaBeauort 13.4 19.2 5.9 44

University o South CarolinaColumbia 18.5 23.5 5.0 27

University o South CarolinaUpstate 17.1 22.2 5.1 30

Source: IPEDS and U.S. Census BureauNote: 2005 dollar amounts or tuition & ees and median income were based on 2010 ination-adjusted numbers.

Percentage

2005

2010

13.4%

19.2%

15.5%

20.2%

16.4%

22.1%

17.1%

22.2%

17.3%

22.5%

18.5%

23.5%

16.9%

24.7%

22.3%

28.6%

USC-Col

umbia

Clemson

USC-Ups

tate

Coastal

Carolina

USC-Aike

nSC-S

tate

USC-Bea

ufort

Charles

ton


13/4110


Just as businesses track their repeat customers, colleges and universities track theirreshmen retention rates. his measure examines the percentage o irsttime, ulltime reshmen who continue the ollowing year as sophomores. In eect, this is theirstyear dropout rate.

Generally speaking, South Carolina institutions have done a satisactory job oretaining their reshmen, with six out o eight o the institutions reviewed retainingat least 64% o reshmen in the most recent cohort studied. Commendably, the twolargest institutions in the state, University o South CarolinaColumbia and ClemsonUniversity, boast reshman retention rates o 86% and 89%, respectively. he College

o Charleston also retains 81% o irsttime, ulltime reshmen, while at the Aikencampus o the University o South Carolina, retention rose to 73%, a 13% increase

rom ive years prior.Despite these generally encouraging numbers, two schools show cause or

concern. South Carolina State University, while retaining 68% o irsttime ull time

reshmen in 2004, saw that igure decrease to 63% in 2009. USCBeauorts retentionrate dropped rom 56% in 2004 to 52% in 2009.

3.Are freshmen returning?


14/4111


Percentage

2004 Cohort

2009 Cohort

56%

Charles

tonClem

son

USC-Ups

tateUSC

-Aiken

SC-State

Coastal

Carolina

USC-Bea

ufort

USC-C

olumbia

0

20

40

60

80

100

52%

68%

63%64% 64%

62%

69%

60%

73%

82% 81%83%

86%88%

89%

INSTITUTION

2004 Cohort

2009 Cohort

Change

in % Points

Clemson University 88% 89% 1%

Coastal Carolina University 64 64 0

College o Charleston 82 81 -1

South Carolina State University 68 63 -5

University o South CarolinaAiken 60 73 13

University o South CarolinaBeauort 56 52 -4

University o South CarolinaColumbia 83 86 3

University o South CarolinaUpstate 62 69 7

FIRST-YEAR RETENTION RATES F0R FIRST-TIME, FULL-TIME FRESHMEN

Source: IPEDS


15/4112


4.Are students graduatingand doing so on time?

Nationally, less than 58% o the students who enroll as reshmen will graduate withinsix years rom that school. Such low rates put the U.S. behind global competitors.Despite spending more on higher education than any other Organization orEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country, the U.S. ranks 16th

in the percentage o young adults who have completed college.9 Students whoenter college but do not graduate represent a ailed investment, and there areconsequencesor the student, the institution, and taxpayers.

Unortunately, South Carolina schools do poorly when it comes to graduation.he highestperorming school among those studied was Clemson University, withonly hal o irsttime, ulltime students admitted to a ouryear program graduating

on time. Similarly, at the Columbia lagship campus o the University o South

Carolina, only 46% o students graduate within our years. I given six years, thoseigures rise signiicantly; 68% o students at USCColumbia graduate within six years,as do over threequarters o Clemson students. Approximately twothirds o studentsat the College o Charleston graduate within six years.

he graduation rates at other institutions are more troubling, as no other schoolhad a sixyear graduation rate above 43%. Most alarming, among students whomatriculated at USCBeauort in 2004, only 12% graduated within our years, whileless than one in ive inished within six years.


16/4113


BACCALAUREATE GRADUATION RATES FOR FIRST-TIME, FULL-TIME FRESHMEN

INSTITUTION 4-Year 6-Year 4-Year 6-Year 4-Year 6-Year

Clemson University 44% 75% 50% 76% 6% 1%

Coastal Carolina University 21 43 22 43 1 0

College o Charleston 41 58 54 66 13 8

South Carolina State University 21 47 17 39 -4 -8

University o South CarolinaAiken 21 43 19 38 -2 -5University o South CarolinaBeauort* N/A N/A 12 19 N/A N/A

University o South CarolinaColumbia 41 65 46 68 5 3

University o South CarolinaUpstate 16 40 23 39 7 -1

2004 CohortGraduation Rate Changein % Points1999 CohortGraduation Rate

Source: IPEDS*No data reported or 1999 cohort.

Percentage

4-Year Rate, 2004 Cohort

6-Year Rate, 2004 Cohort

12%

Charles

tonClem

son

USC-Ups

tate

Coastal

Carolina

USC-AIke

nSC

State

USC-Bea

ufort

USC-Co

lumbia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19% 19%

38%

17%

39%

23%

39%

22%

43%

54%

66%

46%

68%

50%

76%


17/4114


5.What are institutions spendingmoney on?

Across the country, a growing share o school unds pay or layers and layers oadministration. Some support sta are integral parts o instruction. However, thelongterm trend is very clear. From 1976 to 2005, the ratio o noninstructional stato students in American colleges and universities nearly doubled. 10

In the Palmetto State, there was little change in either instructional oradministrative spending, as individual categories, over the sixyear period studied.On average, instructional spending among the schools reviewed increased by a mere3.2% rom 200304 to 200809, while administrative spending ranged rom a 1.9%decrease to a 4.9% increase over the same time period.

A view o each institution, however, shows that at the majority o schools, the

percentage o total expenditures devoted to administrative costs is rising relative to

the percentage devoted to instruction. he clearest examples are institutions thatare decreasing the portion o their budget devoted to instructional purposes whilesimultaneously increasing administrative spending. At the University o SouthCarolinaAiken campus, the percentage o instructional spending decreased by

7.4% while the percentage o administrative spending increased by 1.1% over a sixyear period. Similarly, South Carolina decreased instructional spending by 3.6%while increasing administrative spending by 4.9%. Only the USCBeauort campusdemonstrated the reverse, increasing instructional spending by 2.1% while reducing

administrative spending by 1.9%.Most troubling is the rate at which schools increased administrative spending

relative to Educational and General (E&G) expenditures, indicating how astadministrative spending is growing relative to the rest o the institutions budget.South Carolina State University increased administrative spending relative to E&Gat the rate o 43.3% over a sixyear period. At this rate, by 2014, over 23% o the

schools total costs will consist o administrative expenditures. At the University oSouth Carolina, the Columbia campus increased its proportion o administrativeexpenditures at the rate o 41.4% over six years. In contrast, the Beauort and Upstatecampuses decreased administrative expenditures at the rate o 18.7% and 9.6%,respectively.

Even Clemson University, which increased its proportion o instructional spending

by 8.6%, also increased administrative spending at the rate o 30.7% over six years.


18/4115


Source: IPEDS

INSTRUCTIONAL VS. ADMINISTRATIVE SPENDING11

INSTITUTION 2003-04 FY 2008-09 FY $ Change % Change

Clemson University Instruction

Administration

$150,452,801

18,843,467

$238,718,608

31,771,600

$88,265,807

12,928,133

58.7%

68.6

Coastal Carolina University InstructionAdministration

30,284,5246,374,436

48,062,13010,121,548

17,777,6063,747,112

58.758.8

College o Charleston Instruction

Administration

58,174,848

11,528,699

76,096,178

18,033,569

17,921,330

6,504,870

30.8

56.4

South Carolina State University Instruction

Administration

31,483,102

7,292,715

40,293,144

14,440,665

8,810,042

7,147,950

28.0

98.0

University o South CarolinaAiken Instruction

Administration

15,934,717

2,492,716

17,497,652

3,529,031

1,562,935

1,036,315

9.8

41.6

University o South CarolinaBeauort Instruction

Administration

4,919,448

959,219

9,139,417

1,393,005

4,219,969

433,786

85.8

45.2

University o South CarolinaColumbia InstructionAdministration 220,780,11021,793,135 298,504,71540,189,978 77,724,60518,396,843 35.284.4

University o South CarolinaUpstate Instruction

Administration

20,202,013

4,099,674

29,749,703

5,541,636

9,547,690

1,441,962

47.3

35.2

INSTITUTION2003-04 FYas % of E&G

2008-09 FYas % of E&G

Change in% Points

%Change

Clemson University Instruction

Administration

37.3%

4.7

45.8%

6.1

8.6%

1.4

23.0%

30.7

Coastal Carolina University InstructionAdministration

51.5

10.8

49.2

10.4

-2.3

-0.5

-4.5

-4.4

College o Charleston Instruction

Administration

53.3

10.6

53.1

12.6

-0.2

2.0

-0.4

19.1

South Carolina State University Instruction

Administration

48.8

11.3

45.2

16.2

-3.6

4.9

-7.4

43.3

University o South CarolinaAiken Instruction

Administration

56.3

8.8

48.9

9.9

-7.4

1.1

-13.1

12.0

University o South CarolinaBeauort Instruction

Administration

51.4

10.0

53.5

8.2

2.1

-1.9

4.0

-18.7

University o South CarolinaColumbia Instruction

Administration

47.4

4.7

49.1

6.6

1.8

1.9

3.7

41.4

University o South CarolinaUpstate Instruction

Administration

52.1

10.6

51.3

9.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.6

-9.6

Although Clemsons total administrative expenses accounted or only 6.1% o its

budget in FY 200809, administrative spending relects a troubling upward trajectory.Overall, the increases in the percentage o E&G unding dedicated to

administrative costs suggest misplaced priorities.


19/4116


Are boards prioritizing academic programs?

When amilies ace new expenditures, they typically ind ways to cut other costs orestablish budget priorities. But do colleges and universities do the same? he ratio

o new programs to closed programs is one such measure designed to assess howwell universities are monitoring program growth and thoughtully prioritizing theiracademic oerings.

In its 2010 paper Perspectives on Program Duplication, the Commission

on Higher Education sets out its ramework or evaluating proposed newdegree programs, describing its process as an extensive, multilayered process oconsideration that is datadriven, reasoned, and analytical. For the iveyear time

period rom 200506 to 201011, the Commission approved 79 new graduate and

undergraduate degree programs at the eight institutions, compared to terminating 69degree programs. However, over hal o the program closures (42) took place in thetwoyear period rom 200910 to 201011, while only 34 new degree programs wereadded.12

Although the Commission has the ultimate authority over program closures,boards o trustees are responsible or initiating the process o program termination.During the iveyear period, the our University o South Carolina campusesall o

which are governed by the same board o trusteesopened 31 new degree programs,

including a doctoral program in Hospitality Management and a bachelors programin Commercial Music, while closing 26. Only two schools closed more programs thanthey opened over the iveyear period: Clemson University (19 closed, 18 new) andSouth Carolina State University (8 closed, 3 new).13

he recent trend has shown a commitment to limiting growth in the number oacademic programs. However, institutional boards can do more to validate the costeectiveness o current and proposed degree programs. Minutes o board meetings

reveal that the level o scrutiny given by trustees to new degree programs variesconsiderably amongst institutions. At most institutions, boards delegate the unctiono program review and termination, and meeting minutes do not relect discussion oanticipated costeectiveness o proposed programs.14

Are buildings used efficiently?

Its a simple truth: heres no urgent reason to build new buildings, i existing

buildings lie vacant during large parts o the day. But that simple truth is sometimes

ignored in much o higher education. he demand or new buildings has beenhigh across the nationeven in the midst o the economic recessionmaking itimperative to assess classroom utilization to gauge how well universities are makinguse o their existing resources beore committing to new ones.


20/4117


In South Carolina, institutions report classroom utilization data to the

Commission, which compiles and reports the data. he Commissions statewideeiciency benchmark is that every classroom be used or academic instruction orat least 30 hours per week, which is a common, albeit liberal standard. A surveyo 20 states classroom usage guidelines conducted by Virginias higher educationcoordinating board, or example, showed that the median state standard was 37 hours

per week.15

In 2005, the average classroom on a university campus was used or classroominstruction 27.87 hours out o the week, across each o the institutions studied. hatnumber increased slightly to 29.56 hours in 2010. he two largest institutions in thestudy, Clemson University and the University o South CarolinaColumbia, showed

diverging trends. Classrooms at the Columbia campus were in use 30.9 hours perweek in 2005 and increased to 37.38 hours per week in 2010, while at Clemson usage

dropped rom 31.77 hours per week in 2005 to 28.28 hours, below the state average,in 2010.16

O the institutions studied, our schools reported classroom usage in excess o30 hours per week in 2010: Coastal Carolina University (41.87), USCColumbia(37.38), USCAiken (31.17), and USCBeauort (30.52), while our schools did not,including Clemson University (28.28), College o Charleston (24.09), USCUpstate

(23.2), and South Carolina State University (18.75).17With exactly hal o the institutions studied satisying South Carolinas 30

hour per week standard, there is some good news. Nonetheless, three schools ail toreach 25 hours per week o use. O the institutions studied, only Coastal CarolinaUniversity kept classrooms in use or a ull 40hour period per week, which includesevening courses. South Carolina should careully consider how it may take ull

advantage o current resources beore undertaking any expansion projects.

Does South Carolina reward performance?

In 1996, the South Carolina legislature passed Act 359, the Perormance Fundingbill, directing the Commission to develop institutional perormance standardsaccording to nine critical success actors, including Mission Focus, ClassroomQuality, and Administrative Eiciency.18 he Act also directed the Commissionto develop a higher education unding ormula based entirely on an institutions

achievement o the standards set or these perormance indicators.19 Currently, the

Commission assesses institutions perormance relative to other institutions on anannual basis in areas including the percentage o degree programs that are nationallyaccredited, the percentage o aculty with terminal degrees in their primary teachingarea, and graduation rates.20


21/4118


Despite the statutes requirement that the ormula be based entirely on an

institutions achievement, in addition to perormance actors, South Carolina alsoemploys a needsbased unding ormula named the Mission Resource RequirementsFunding Model (MRR). Under this model, the Commission assigns each institutiona baseline unding amount based on the Commissions assessment o nationallycomparable costs or institutions o similar mission, size, and complexity o

programs.21 he institution ultimately receives a percentage o the baseline amount

based on the institutions scores under the perormance indicators.22

he act that South Carolina uses a perormance unding model is veryencouraging. here are, however, two elements that can be improved. he irst is inthe metrics used by the Commission to measure perormancemost are either input

or output measures (e.g., number o accredited programs, research grants received),while ew are devoted to academic outcomes which are the ultimate barometer o

institutional quality.Another recommendation is to place more emphasis on perormance measures

than on the MRR model. As currently implemented, an underperorming institutionthat serves a need may actually receive increasing appropriations. he Commissionshould consider modiying the unding ormula to encourage institutions to ocus on

providing high academic quality, rather than positioning themselves to serve needs

they may not be equipped to ulill.


22/4119


GENERAL EDUCATION


23/4120


6.What are students actuallylearning?

One o the simplest ways to control costs while enhancing educational quality isthrough a solid general education program. General education (sometimes calleda core curriculum) reers to required undergraduate courses outside the studentsspecialization or major. Such courses are designed to provide exposure to a wide

range o disciplines, a core o undamental knowledge, and collegelevel skills in areascritical to good citizenship, workorce participation, and lielong learning. Manycolleges give the appearance o providing a core curriculum because they requirestudents to take courses in several subject areas other than their majoroten calleddistribution requirements. However, within each subject area, it is not uncommon

or students to have dozens or even hundreds o courses rom which to choosemany o them on narrow or trendy subject matters. he chart on the ollowing page

relects the institutions general education requirements in seven key categories. Inmost o the seven subjects, credit is given or requiring a broad, collegelevel surveycourse. (For urther details on the criteria used, please see the Appendix.)

Institutions that ail to provide students with a general education core curriculumactually jeopardize their graduates longterm employment prospects. Accordingto a 2010 study by the Bureau o Labor Statistics, the average person born between1957 and 1964 held an average o 11 dierent jobs between ages 1844.23 Asound oundation o core skills is a powerul advantage in an everchanging global

marketplace.he importance o a solid general education is compounded by the rate at which

whole industries disappear, orcing workers to either adjust or become vocationally

obsolete. At least one economic study o the most recent recession suggests thatan increasing proportion o workers remain unemployed or long periods o timebecause they ind it diicult to transer their skills to new industries.24

When viewed individually, the institutions perorm well, with ive o the eightschools surveyed requiring a majority o seven core subjects. However, when the stateis evaluated in terms o whether a majority o institutions require each curriculumarea, it perorms poorly; only three subjectscomposition, mathematics, and natural

or physical scienceare required by a majority o the institutions reviewed.


24/4121


Notes:

Clemson:No credit given or Foreign Language because the requirement only applies to select degree programs.Coastal Carolina:No credit given or Literature because the "Knowledge o Humanistic Concepts" requirement maybe ulflled with courses in history or philosophy. No credit given or Foreign Language because students may ulfll therequirement with elementary-level study.

South Carolina State:One-hal credit given or both U.S. Government or History and Economics because the subjectsare olded into the "Economics or Government" requirement, thus students may choose either one or the other. No credit

given or Mathematics because the "Quantitative Reasoning and Technological Literacy" requirement may be satisfed bycourses with little college-level math content.

University of South Carolina-Aiken:No credit given or Foreign Language because students may ulfll the

requirement with elementary-level study.

University of South Carolina-Beaufort:No credit given or Foreign Language because students may ulfll therequirement with elementary-level study. No credit given or U.S. Government or History because a survey course

in American government or history is an option, but not required, to ulfll the history portion o the "Liberal Arts"requirement.

University of South Carolina-Columbia:No credit given or Literature because the requirement only applies to select

degree programs. No credit given or Foreign Language because students may ulfll the requirement with elementary-level study. No credit given or U.S. Government or History because, or students in select degree programs, a surveycourse in American government or history is an option, but not required, to ulfll the "History" requirement.

University of South Carolina-Upstate:No credit given or Foreign Language because students may ulfll the

requirement with elementary-level study. No credit given or U.S. History or Government because a survey course inAmerican government or history is an option, but not required, to ulfll the "History" requirement.

INSTITUTION Comp Lit Lang

Gov/

Hist Econ Math Sci

Clemson University

Coastal Carolina University

College o Charleston

South Carolina State University

University o South CarolinaAiken

University o South CarolinaBeauort

University o South CarolinaColumbia

University o South CarolinaUpstate

GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS BY INSTITUTION


25/4122


he institutions have certain curricular strengths: every single school requires at

least one course in English composition and in natural or physical science; and allbut one institution requires at least one course in collegelevel mathematics. USC'sCarolina Core Project is also an encouraging initiative that might be expanded orreplicated at other institutions.25

Unortunately, students in South Carolina can graduate with vast gaps in theirskills and knowledge: only one institution (College o Charleston) requires oreign

language study beyond the beginning level; and only one (South Carolina StateUniversity) received any credit or requiring a course in economics. Only three outo eight institutions require a broad literature survey course. Despite the PalmettoStates rich cultural history and national signiicance, it is discouraging that ew

institutions require a survey course in U.S. government or history.South Carolina does have an excellent ramework in place to acilitate cost

eective transer o credits or students moving between institutions. Currently, thestate has a Statewide Articulation Agreement containing 86 universally transerrablecourses among public colleges and universities in South Carolina. For courses notsubject to the Agreement, the state provides an online search toolthe SouthCarolina Course Articulation and ranser System (SCRAC)with inormation

on the various transer agreements among the several institutions. ranser

agreements can vary widely, however, so the ramework does not ully guarantee easeo transer.

In order to be good stewards o their resources and to ensure that studentsacquire the knowledge they need, institutions in South Carolina should proceed on

three ronts. First, they should retain the excellent requirements they already havein composition, mathematics, and natural or physical science. Second, they shouldstrengthen their other requirements so that all students will achieve intermediatecompetency in a oreign language, learn basic economic principles, and take broadcourses in literature and U.S. government or history. Furthermore, since transer

policies vary widely, the state would be welladvised to develop credit transer policieswith clearly deined subject area qualiication rubrics to stimulate the development oa robust core structure systemwide.


26/4123


GOVERNANCE


27/4124


7.Is South Carolinas governancestructure effective?

Governance o higher education has been a hot topic in virtually every state since theearly 1990s. Given declining state resources, and troubling evidence o rising costsand declining quality around the country, the public has increasingly looked or waysto do things dierently. In 2007, Public Agenda ound that a majority o the public

elt that their state higher education system should be overhauled.26

he USC system has not been isolated rom such public policy debates. In act,over the years, the states governance structureand its eectivenesshave oten

prompted comment and questions.

How is the system structured?

here are two major types o higher education governance systems in place today:

consolidated governing board systems and coordinating board systems. In theormer, the operations o all campuses are centrally governed by a single board,

while in coordinating board systems, each institution is overseen by its own boardo trustees, which are in turn supervised by a statewide agency. About hal the states,including South Carolina, have coordinating board systems, while the rest use

consolidated systems.

Commission on Higher Education

he South Carolina Commission on Higher Education is set out in statute and isresponsible or establishing a strategic plan by which colleges and universities maymake operational decisions with the interests o the state in mind.27 Among theCommissions key coordinating unctions are consolidating each institutions budget

in an omnibus annual appropriations request to the governors oice, approving ordenying new program additions, and obtaining metrics o academic success at eachinstitution.28

he Commission is comprised o 14 members (13 voting), six o whom areselected by legislators rom their respective legislative districts and appointed by thegovernor or ouryear terms, and three o whom are appointed rom the state at

large upon the advice and consent o the Senate.29 By statute, these nine nominees

must have experience in at least one o the ollowing areas: business, the education


28/4125


o uture leaders and teachers, management, or policy.30 As o October 2011, the

composition o the Commission includes a ormer college academic vice presidentand dean, a vocational education specialist, a computer science proessor, and severalindividuals with extensive management experience.31 he majority o Commissionmembers come rom the private sector and bring varied perspectives.

In addition, the governor o South Carolina selects our members or twoyearterms each, but there are signiicant restrictions. One must be a trustee rom a public

senior research institution, one rom a ouryear public institution o higher learning,one rom the local area technical education commissions or the State Board orechnical and Comprehensive Education, and one nonvoting member must comerom the Advisory Council o Private College Presidents, currently known as

the South Carolina Independent College and Universities, a group o institutionsthat includes Furman University, Clalin University, and Benedict College.32 Allgubernatorial appointees or the Commission are either irst recommended by the

legislature or are subject to Senate ratiication.

Institutional Boards

In South Carolina, each institution has its own board o trustees, appointedaccording to statute.33 rustees have broad powers, including academic policy,

administrative and aculty personnel decisions, and internal resource allocation.Selection o institutional trustees is set out in state statute and institutional

bylaws. With one exception, legislativelyelected trustees comprise a voting majorityon each board. At the University o South Carolina, 16 o 20 trustees are elected by

vote o the General Assembly;34 at Clemson University, the number is 6 out o 13,the remaining seven trustees are lie members elected by the board itsel;35 at CoastalCarolina University, 15 out o 17;36 at the College o Charleston, 15 out o 18

trustees;37 and at South Carolina State University, 12 out o 13.38 he governor sitson each board as an ex oicio member.

By statute, trustee selection is largely dictated by geography: on the University oSouth Carolina board, each o the states 16 judicial circuits must be represented, 39and at Coastal Carolina University, the College o Charleston, and South CarolinaState University, each o six congressional districts must be represented.40 Aside romthis requirement, the statute governing the composition o all boards requires that

selections be based on merit regardless o race, color, creed or gender and shall strive

to assure that the membership o the board is representative o all citizens o theState o South Carolina.41

Among trustee boards, a majorityor more oten, a supermajorityo eachboard is elected by the legislature.


29/4126


Are trustees controlling costs and increasing efficiency?

he Commission deserves credit or its ocus on course transerabilitya key part ocost control and eiciency, as outlined in the section on General Education.

Despite a lack o academic program review, recent institutional action to addresscost and eectiveness is also promising.42 Minutes regarding the FY 20102011budget decisions o the USC board document dicussions o a number o speciicexpenditure components.43 And in Fall 2010, the board Executive Committee met

with a consulting group to [a]ssess eectiveness in cost management and[d]evelop measures or determining eiciency and eectiveness in administrativeand academic programs.44

Clemsons Bridge to Clemson Program notably leverages the resources o

other state institutions. It coordinates with the riCounty echnical College(CC) to provide a program in which successul CC students may enroll

during their sophomore year.45 In June 2009, trustees at Clemson also showed

their independence by a split vote approving the administrations tuition and eesrecommendation.46

Coastal Carolina Universitys board unanimously approved budget motions inFebruary 2010, waiving their personal per diem and travel expenditure; directing theUniversity president to identiy $4 million in budgetary savings; and also requestingthat the president identiy alternative revenue sources or the University.47

he College o Charleston board o trustees unanimously approved the budgetmotion or the 20102011 year, but required that certain objective perormancegoals and criteria be achieved during the term o the presidents contract extension,recognizing the need or an accountability structure.48

Yet, even with these excellent steps, board deliberations have never involved bigpicture discussions that could promote cost cutting and eiciencies around the state.

Moreover, our examination o institutional and statewide trends in tuition and costsshows the arrows are pointing up, not down. (See Cost & Eectiveness section.)

Are trustees improving student learning and academic accountability?

All public institutions are required to submit an annual Accountability Reportto the Commission, ollowing what the Commission calls Malcolm BaldridgeAward Criteria, which include categories o: senior leadership, governance and

social responsibility; strategic planning; customer and market ocus; measurement,

analysis and knowledge management; workorce ocus; process management; andresults.49 Schools must also submit a yearly Institutional Eectiveness report to theCommission, which includes data on aculty compensation, aculty credentials,

proportion o classes taught by ulltime aculty, and graduation rates. he datacompiled by the Commission are released in several reports to the governor and


30/4127


General Assembly and are in part used or unding decisions. As a result, each school

has an oice o Institutional Eectiveness, or the equivalent thereo, to compile datameasures.

In addition to these mandatory reporting requirements, a majority o theschools reviewedClemson University, Coastal Carolina University, Collegeo Charleston, and the Aiken, Beauort, and Upstate campuses o the University

o South Carolinaalso participate in the Voluntary System o Accountability(VSA),50 a program in which participants report the results o learning outcomesassessment testing that measures the level o increase in core collegiate skills such ascritical reasoning and expository writing. As part o this program, most, i not all,use the ES Proiciency Portolio, ormerly the Measure o Academic Progress and

Proiciency (MAPP), to quantiy critical thinking and written communication skills.Despite the number o measuring instruments and the amount o data available

to assess the academic quality o their institutions, resources that should encourageinormed decisionmaking, there are only scattered signals that trustees are takingairmative steps to improve academic quality and actively address academicmatters. Minutes rom the Coastal Carolina University board indicate a committeediscussion o the 2008 Assessment System which measures the eectiveness o

student learning, student development, and the administrative unit operations o the

University, as well as an assessment o the productivity o speciic degree programs.51he South Carolina State strategic plan includes distinct objectives such as closingthe gap in educational attainment across ethnic group, gender, income levels, andgeographical regions.52 And in one meeting o the South Carolina State Universityboard o trustees, one trustee bluntly requested that an administration oicialinvestigate the cause o high ailure rates in certain courses.53 In another instance,the board minutes show trustees wishing to be consulted prior to any administrative

reorganization.54 But these examples are ew and ar between.Board minutes reveal that many boards delegate important issues to the

academic administration or board subcommittees, with virtually all motionscarried unanimously. In the case at the College o Charleston, tenure decisions werereported to the board atertheact by the provosts oice.

Board members similarly show little interest when it comes to ree speech

on campus. Although there are policies in place to protect the ree exchange oideas (e.g., Clemsons directive against introducing unrelated matters into the

classroom),55

there are also policies that threaten reedom o speech. he Foundationor Individual Rights in Education, which maintains a comprehensive database othreats to ree speech, has concluded that restrictive policies are in place at bothClemson and USC. he USC is on FIREs red light list or clear and substantial

restrictions o ree speech, while Clemson University earned a yellow light warning


31/4128


or endangering ree speech.56 Despite the clear suggestion that there is a problem,minutes do not relect that the trustees have engaged in any signiicant discussionover the propriety o the policies in place.

With a ew noteworthy exceptions, there is scant evidence that trustees are

actively seeking ways to measure and improve academic quality. And our review ogeneral education and transer o credit outlined in the General Education sectionshows there is still much work to be done.

Prepared in mind and resources?

For over two centuries, the South Carolina motto o Prepared in Mind and

Resources has served as a telling reminder o the importance o an inormed

citizenry. Moreover, the statutory mission o the states higher education system callsor South Carolina to be a global leader in providing a coordinated, comprehensivesystem o excellence in education, emphasizing goals such as high academicquality, aordable and accessible education, and clearly deined missions.57

In this context, we ask the ollowing questions: Is the current system organizedin a way to achieve these goals? Can leaders decide on a set o objectives and then

eectively implement them? Is the system accountable to the states priorities inways that enable leaders to know whether objectives have been achieved? Is thestates public higher education system structured to encourage institutions to workin concert to achieve a cohesive statewide vision?

he short answer is no.

Despite the Commissions statutory responsibility or a strategic plan, it has notadopted one since 2002.58 Instead, the Legislature delegated the development o sucha plan to the Higher Education Study Committee (HESC), a separate ninemembergroup appointed by the governor o South Carolina and by leaders o the General

Assembly. In 2008, HESC released a report entitled Leveraging Higher EducationFor a Stronger South Carolina: he Action Plan Framework, which set orth ourgoals or 20092015 to be implemented by the Commission:59

MakingSouthCarolinaOneoftheMostEducatedStates

IncreasingResearchandInnovationinSouthCarolina

MakingSouthCarolinaaLeaderinWorkforceTrainingandEducational

Services; and

RealizingSouthCarolinasPotential:ResourcesandEffectiveness.

HESC released a ollowup report in March 2009 entitled Action PlanImplementation, identiying speciic objectives necessary to achieve each goal. For

example, under the goal o becoming one o the Most Educated States, HESC


32/4129


emphasized increasing higher education graduation rates, attracting and retaining

more graduates, and better preparing high school graduates or collegelevel academicwork; under Increasing Research and Innovation, it encouraged creating ormalknowledgesharing mechanisms among South Carolina institutions.60

he Implementation objectives provide measurable benchmarks or success.However, nowhere does the Action Plan oer guidance to each institutionconcerning its speciic role within the state. In the absence o guidance, research

shows that institutions, through their boards o trustees, have ocused on parochialgoals rather than statewide needs. Programs oten overlap rom institutionto institution, at a time when both technological advances and limited stateresources call or creative coordination and consolidation.61 In one case, the

strategic plan consists o trying to outcompete other institutions by targeting andattracting students who would attend the states other comparable institutions.

he understandable loyalty a trustee holds toward his or her home institutioncan create perverse incentives or institutions to duplicate programs rather thanspecialize.

he existing appointment process makes reaching a statewide vision diicult toachieve. he legislature currently selects most college and university trustees, largely

with regard to local geography. he practice o allocating trustee seats to politically

delineated districts bears little connection to qualities that make or eectivetrusteeship or statewide coordination. At the same time, legislative bodies, by theirnature, ace requent turnover and represent disparate interests. As a consequence,the Commission members and institutional trustees represent varying perspectives,oering no statewide vision, no clear accountability. In eect, the legislative

appointment process divorces responsibility rom accountability. he legislatureis operating as both legislator and executiveappropriating unds and appointing

people.Given the geographic diversity o South Carolina, there is considerable potential

or a robust statewide vision with discrete roles or each o its institutions. Coastal

Carolinas desire to distinguish itsel among other South Carolina public institutionswould be an advantage to the state, were it ocused on unique programming, ratherthan competition or enrollment. Likewise, when more than one institution sharessimilar strategic goalsas is apparently the case in the health care programs atClemson and the University o South Carolinaresource sharing is imperative.62

Yet, while the state statute contemplates a coordinated, comprehensive systemo excellence in education,63 the current system allows institutional interests tooutweigh those o the state.

When taken as a whole, the indings o this report are troubling. Many studentsthroughout the state can graduate with large gaps in their knowledge. uition and


33/4130


costs are rising rapidly, and amilies are being asked to pay more and more o their

hardearned dollars. Meanwhile, graduation rates remain woeully low. hereis little evidence that either the Commission or the institutional boards have acoordinated or consolidated vision.he states desire to ensure high academicquality, aordability, and accessibilityand the clear challenges to the goalsdocumented in this reportmake a review o the state's higher education governing

structure both urgent and timely.


34/4131


End Notes

1. John Immerwahr and Jean Johnson, Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at

Higher Education oday, a report prepared by Public Agenda or Te National Centeror Public Policy and Higher Education (Washington, DC: 2007), 23.

2. National Center or Education Statistics,A First Look at Literacy o Americas Adultsin the 21st Century, National Assessment o Adult Literacy 2003, U.S. Department oEducation, 15 .

3. College Board, rends in College Pricing 2010, 13.

4. Te period o evaluation is generally ve years. However, periods o measure varyslightly based on data availability and the specic measure. Te most recent year or

which data is available is consistently between 200506 and 201011. Te data include

early release data rom the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)o the U.S. Department o Education Institute o Education Sciences, and may besubject to revision.

5. U.S. Census Bureau,Median Household Income by StateSingle-Year Estimates, accessed10 October 2011 .

6. Institute or College Access & Success, Te Project on Student Debt, accessed10 October 2011 .

7. Institute or College Access & Success, Te Project on Student Debt: Student Debt andthe Class o 2009, 3 .

8. Te median household income in South Carolina or 2009 (in 2009 dollars) was$41,101. U.S. Census Bureau,Median Household Income by StateSingle-Year Estimates,accessed 10 October 2011 .

9. Organization or Economic Cooperation and Development,Education at a Glance2011, accessed 11 October 2011 .10. Richard Vedder, Over Invested and Over Priced: American Higher Education oday

(Washington, DC: Center or Aordability and Productivity, 2007), 9.

11. For the purposes o this report, administrative expenditure data are derived rom theIPEDS expense category reported under Institutional Support. According to IPEDS,Institutional Support is dened as: []he sum o all operating expenses associated

with the daytoday operational support o the institution. Includes expenses or generaladministrative services, central executivelevel activities concerned with managementand long range planning, legal and scal operations, space management, employee

personnel and records, logistical services such as purchasing and printing, and publicrelations and development. Notably, institutional support does not include debtexpense (reported under Interest), capital expenditures such as deerred maintenance(reported under Operation and Maintenance o Plant), and the catchall group oIndependent Operations, which includes costs associated with operations that areindependent o or unrelated to the primary missions o the institution. As such, theactual level o noninstructional expenditures reported can be signicantly higher.


35/4132


12. Data sources are derived rom theAnnual Report on Approved and erminatedPrograms by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.

13. Ibid.

14. Meeting minutes rom the South Carolina State University board o trustees showthoughtul exchanges between trustees and university leadership regarding the undingor proposed degree programs. At Coastal Carolina University, trustees are deeplyengaged in program review and do not delegate that unction.

15. State Council or Higher Education in Virginia, Space Utilization and ComparisonReport, accessed 10 October 2011 .

16. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, Current & Historical FacilitiesData, accessed 10 October 2011 .

17. Ibid.

18. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,A Closer Look at PublicHigher Education in South Carolina: Institutional Efectiveness, Accountability, andPerormance, accessed 10 October 2011 ; S.C. Code 5910330, 5910345.

19. S.C. Code 5910345(d).

20. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,A Closer Look at Public

Higher Education in South Carolina: Institutional Efectiveness, Accountability, andPerormance, accessed 10 October 2011 .

21. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,Mission Resource RequirementsFunding Model, accessed 10 October 2011 .

22. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education,Perormance Funding Workbook:A Guide to South Carolinas Perormance Funding System or Public Higher Education,accessed 10 October 2011, .

23. Bureau o Labor Statistics,Number o Jobs Held, Labor Market Activity, and EarningsGrowth Among the Youngest Baby Boomers: Results From a Longitudinal Survey, U.S.Department o Labor, USDL101243, September 2010.

24. A. Hornstein et al.,Potential Causes and Implications o the Rise in Long-ermUnemployment, Economic Brie, Federal Reserve Bank o Richmond, EB1109,September 2011.

25. Trough the Carolina Core program, the University o South Carolina provides

the common core o knowledge, skill, and academic experience required or allCarolina graduates. Applicable to all USC campuses, this program emphasizes sevenkey components including: Aesthetic and Interpretive Understanding; AnalyticalReasoning and ProblemSolving; Eective, Engaged and Persuasive Communication;Global Citizenship and Multicultural Understanding; Inormation Literacy; ScienticLiteracy; and Values, Ethics and Social Responsibility.


36/4133


26. John Immerwahr and Jean Johnson, Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look atHigher Education oday.

27. Te responsibilities o the Commission are set out in S.C. Code 5910310 et seq.Broadly stated in the statute, the mission or higher education in South Carolina is

to be a global leader in providing a coordinated, comprehensive system o excellencein education by providing instruction, research, and lielong learning opportunities

which are ocused on economic development and benet the State o South Carolina.S.C. Code 5910315(A)(1). Te statute prescribes six goals to achieve this mission:high academic quality; aordable and accessible education; instructional excellence;coordination and cooperation with public education; cooperation among theGeneral Assembly, Commission on Higher Education, Council o Presidents o StateInstitutions, institutions o higher learning, and the business community; economicgrowth; and clearly dened missions. S.C. Code 5910315(A)(2).

28. S.C. Code 5910325, 30, 35.29. S.C. Code 5910310(1).

30. Ibid.

31. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, Board Member Biographies,accessed 10 October 2011 < http://www.che.sc.gov/ExecutiveDirector/COMBIOS.

pd>.

32. S.C. Code 5910310 (listing gubernatorial appointment requirements); SouthCarolina Independent Colleges and Universities, accessed 10 October 2011 < http://

www.scicu.org>.

33. S.C. Code 5911710 (University o South Carolina); 5911940 (ClemsonUniversity); 59136110 (Coastal Carolina University); 5913010 (College oCharleston); 5912720 (South Carolina State University).

34. S.C. Code 5911710.

35. S.C. Code 5911940.

36. S.C. Code 59136110.

37. S.C. Code 5913010.

38. S.C. Code 5912720.39. S.C. Code 5911710.

40. S.C. Code 59136110; 5913010; 5912720.

41. S.C. Code 5911710 (University o South Carolina); 5911940 (ClemsonUniversity); 59136110 (Coastal Carolina University); 5913010 (College oCharleston); 5912720 (South Carolina State University).

42. Te analysis covers board actions rom January 2009 through June 2011. Board meetingminutes, meeting materials, policies and bylaws, other documents and media reports

were consulted.43. University o South Carolina Board o rustees, Minutes o June 25, 2010 Meeting,

accessed 10 October 2011 .

44. University o South Carolina Board o rustees, Minutes o December 20, 2010Meeting, accessed 10 October 2011 .


37/4134


45. Clemson University, 201112 Bridge to Clemson Program, accessed 10 October 2011.

46. Clemson University Board o rustees, Minutes o June 18, 2009 Meeting, accessed10 October 2011 .

47. Coastal Carolina University Board o rustees, Minutes o February 26, 2010Meeting, accessed 10 October 2011 .

48. College o Charleston Board o rustees, Minutes o June 7, 2010 Meeting,accessed 10 October 2011 http://trustees.coc.edu/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_F0AF13162654AC212CC2384E8778B46D5C7B0100/lename/minutesjun0710.

pd; College o Charleston Board o rustees, Minutes o February 8, 2011Meeting, accessed 12 October 2011 < http://trustees.coc.edu/documents/minutes/ebruary8,2011.pd>.

49. E.g., South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, Annual AccountabilityReport Fiscal Year 20102011, accessed 10 October 2011 http://www.che.sc.gov/ExecutiveDirector/AgencyAcctRpt.pd; S.C. Code 59101350.

50. College Portrait o Undergraduate Education, accessed 10 October 2011 .

51. Coastal Carolina University Board o rustees, Minutes o February 20, 2009Meeting, accessed 10 October 2011 http://www.coastal.edu/board/minutes/eb20_09min.pd; Coastal Carolina University Board o rustees, Minutes o July 17,2009 Meeting, accessed 12 October 2011 .

52. South Carolina State University, Strategic Plan 20062011, accessed 10 October 2011.

53. South Carolina State University Board o rustees, Minutes o April 30,2010 Meeting, accessed 10 October 2011 .

54. South Carolina State University Board o rustees, Minutes o July 29, 2009 Meeting,accessed 10 October 2011 < http://www.scsu.edu/les/BOCalledMeeting072909.

pd>.55. Clemson University, Faculty Manual, accessed 10 October 2011 , 8.

56. Te Foundation or Individual Rights in Education, Institutions in South Carolina,accessed 10 October 2011 .

57. S.C. Code 5910315.

58. South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, Strategic Plan or HigherEducation in South Carolina, accessed 10 October 2011 .59. Higher Education Study Committee,Leveraging Higher Education or a Stronger South

Carolina: Action Plan Framework, accessed 10 October 2011 < http://www.che.sc.gov/InoCntr/HESC_Files/HESC_FrameworkPlan_Letter.pd>, 12 (designating theCommission as responsible or overall coordination o plan implementation and evaluation).


38/4135


60. Higher Education Study Committee,Leveraging Higher Education or a Stronger SouthCarolina: Action Plan Implementation, accessed 10 October 2011 .

61. Te University o South Carolina and Clemson University have signicant overlap

in their strategic plans to establish themselves as national public research institutions.For example, part o USCs Advance Carolina strategic plan involves the creation oa Health Sciences ask Force, an integrated structure with the purpose o gainingnational recognition or initiatives in the areas o health policy, global health,undergraduate and graduate education, and clinical medicine. Similarly, ClemsonUniversitys 2020 Road Map includes expansion into the elds o biomedicalengineering, molecular/inectious diseases, smart hospitals, ood systems, unctionalgenomics, [and] translational animal medicine.

62. Both USC and Clemson will likely incur signicant expenses pursuing these objectives,

as both plan to expand their acilities to accommodate this growth. Tis becomes yetmore tangled when one considers that USC has a medical school, while Clemson doesnot. One might wonder whether molecular/inectious diseases would make better senseattached to a medical school, while issues o health policy might attach themselves toClemsons strong economics and political science programs.

63. S.C. Code 5910315.


39/41

Appendix

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR CORE COURSES

Distribution requirements on most campuses today permit students to pick rom a wide

range o courses that oen are narrow or even outside the stated eld altogether. Accordingly,

to determine whether institutions in act have a solid core curriculum, ACA denes success

in each o the seven subject areas as ollows:

Composition

An introductory college writing class ocusing on grammar, clarity, argument, and appropriate

expository style. Remedial courses and SA/AC scores may not be used to satisy a

composition requirement. Universityadministered exams or portolios are acceptable onlywhen they are used to determine exceptional precollege preparation or students. Writing

intensive courses, writing across the curriculum seminars, and writing or a discipline

are not acceptable unless there is an indication o clear provisions or multiple writing

assignments, instructor eedback, revision and resubmission o student writing, and explicit

language concerning the mechanics o ormal writing, including such elements as grammar,

sentence structure, coherence, and documentation.

Literature

A comprehensive literature survey or a selection o courses o which a clear majority aresurveys and the remainder are literary in nature, although singleauthor or themebased in

structure. Freshman seminars, humanities sequences, or other specialized courses that include

a substantial literature survey component count.

Foreign Language

Competency at the intermediate level, dened as at least three semesters o collegelevel

study in any oreign language. No distinction is made between B.A. and B.S. degrees, or

individual majors within these degrees, when applying the Foreign Language criteria. Credit

is also awarded to schools that require two semesters o collegelevel study in two dierent

languages.

U.S. Government or History

A survey course in either U.S. government or history with enough chronological and topical

breadth to expose students to the sweep o American history and institutions. Narrow,

niche courses do not count or the requirement, nor do courses that only ocus on a limited

chronological period or a specic state or region. State or universityadministered, and/or

statemandated, exams are accepted or credit on a casebycase basis dependent upon therigor required.

Economics

A course covering basic economic principles, preerably an introductory micro or

macroeconomics course taught by aculty rom the economics or business department.


40/41

Mathematics

A collegelevel course in mathematics. Specic topics may vary, but must involve study

beyond the level o intermediate algebra and cover topics beyond those typical o a college

preparatory high school curriculum. Remedial courses or SA/AC scores may not be used

as substitutes. Courses in ormal or symbolic logic, computer science with programming, andlinguistics involving ormal analysis count.

Natural or Physical Science

A course in astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physical geography, physics, or

environmental science, preerably with a laboratory component. Overly narrow courses,

courses with weak scientic content, and courses taught by aculty outside o the science

departments do not count. Psychology courses count i they are ocused on the biological,

chemical, or neuroscientic aspects o the eld.

Hal-Credit

I a requirement exists rom which students choose between otherwise qualiying courses that

meet two What Will Tey LearnM subject areas (e.g., math or science; history or economics,

etc.), onehal credit is given or both subjects.


41/41

American Council of Trustees and Alumni

1726 M Street, NW, Suite 802

Washington DC 20036

2011 acta report for south carolina

Documents