General Education at Penn State: A Numerical Discussion

In light of our recent deliberations over the future of higher education, it seems that my civic issue topic — exploring general education — is especially pertinent. Initially, I planned on dedicating my first blog to introducing general education at Penn State and elsewhere. However, I came across a timely article written by Christopher Long, Associate Dean for Graduate and Undergraduate Education at Penn State, breaking down General Education at our university. It’s an excellent, numerically-driven breakdown of where Penn State stands in regards to General Education, and also considers where we may be heading. Further, the article questions the economic feasibility of heavy GenEd requirements — a common concern amongst students.

Here’s how the current system runs, according to Dr. Long:

Penn State has a 45 credit GenEd requirement for a four-year Bachelor’s Degree. At branch campuses, where most students leave after two years for University Park, GenEds make up over half (60%) of the student credit hours (SCH). However, this overcounts the true extent of General Education at Penn State: many of the GenEds taken also count for major or minor requirements. Thus, according to Long, GenEds — not related to majors — really only account for a third of our total education at Penn State.

Now that we’ve established the basic background for our topic, let’s dive a bit deeper into the costs behind these General Education requirements. It’s much more complicated than the oft-assumed proposition that if a third of our classes are GenEds, then it must cost a third of our tuition — which would then be a third we could save if these requirements were changed. No. Bare with me, it’s not that simple.

Long breaks down the cost per SCH for GenEds by course level (0-199,200-299, 300-399, 400-499). The cost per SCH is primarily driven by class size. It would seem intuitive that the lower- level courses (0-199) would be less expensive than upper-level courses: lower-level courses are more inclusive, have fewer prerequisites, and often do have more students (think about Econ 102 compared to Econ 302). However, at University Park, 300 level courses are in fact less expensive per SCH than 200 level courses.

Long doesn’t really answer the “what could this possibly mean?” question. Despite the lack of a formal conclusion, I think we can derive a few things from his findings. First, it may not be the most cost-efficient option to simply cut GenEd requirements. If we did, thus only requiring students to only take lower-level GenEds, the university would be paying more per SCH than if students were continuing their general education to higher levels. However, we must keep in mind that Long’s analysis is looking at what the university is paying, not the student. I imagine that’s a different story. But for the university, a more expansive GenEd program seems lucrative, or at least less costly.

It’s further cheaper for the university because GenEds are taught overwhelmingly by fixed-term faculty members, not full or associate professors. According to Long, 56% of GenEds at Penn State are taught by fixed-terms; 20% are taught by full or associate professors. Given that fixed-terms, on average, receive a lower salary than tenured professors, General Education is less expensive for the university than a situation in which students take the same amount of credits, but with fewer GenEds.

Long then considers the implications of changing General Education at Penn State to a 36 credit requirement, a premise that many students support. The current cost for a 45 credit GenEd model for a student at University Park costs the school $4373. A 36 credit model, in which the other 9 credits are divided between electives and major-related courses, costs the university significantly more, to the tune of $5500-6450 depending on the model and college of the student.

Long’s findings suggest that General Education is the most affordable division of credit hours for the university. A few things to note:

By changing the GenEd requirements from 45 to 36 credits, it doesn’t make it 9 credits easier to graduate. Students will still have to fulfill other requirements with those 9 credits, which will now be more focused to their major. It doesn’t seem that Long — or the university — is proposing an initiative to scrap 9 credits from General Education, and thus also from the total credits needed to graduate.

In conclusion, while, to coin a term, Long’s analysis is university-side economics, it appears that heavy General Education requirements for Penn State (a school with over 40,000 students) is a cost efficient method to teach its students. Further, it’s a more complex issue than we may have first imagined: if it’s cheaper for the university, it may very well be cheaper for the student, as well.

Comments

  1. A lot of you are mentioning the fact that Gen Eds are a good way to explore career paths and different options here at PSU. I completely agree. My roommate, for example, has no clue what major she wants to pursue. So, the only classes she’s taking are Gen eds… but she still has a problem: nothing is sparking her interest. Now, this could just be her. Maybe she’s stubborn or is completely indecisive, which is very possible. Or maybe the gen eds that are offered here aren’t that relevant to “life” so to speak? I’m not saying that this is my opinion, because it’s not. But then there are people who know exactly what they want to do, so they hardly bother with gen eds.
    With that being said, I found it very surprising that certain gen eds were cheaper/more expensive than others. I had no clue that was an issue.
    Interesting post.
    -Laura Toney

  2. Reading this, I’m reminded of the general principle that you can make numbers say almost anything. Looking at these statistics, which show that it would cost the university more to cut GenEds, I have a couple questions: why weren’t these numbers run from the student perspective? It seems to me a bit suspicious that these numbers conveniently support the University’s position, which opposes the student desire for fewer GenEd credits, but somehow never calculate the student side. Why are those calculations missing? Another minor point that makes me more cautious about these numbers is, as you say, Long’s assertion that “56% of GenEds at Penn State are taught by fixed-terms; 20% are taught by full or associate professors.” That only accounts for 76% of the general education classes–so where’s that other 24% of teaching coming from?
    Long’s conclusion may be valid, and it does seem possible that savings for the university may translate to savings for students. However, the above statistical details are enough to make me want a more thorough investigation before I agree with him.

  3. My computer won’t let me respond to individual comments, but to respond to Katie, I hadn’t thought about that fact that most student change their number. Out of curiosity, where did you get that 80% number from? If that’s accurate, then it appears that GenEds are important not only for a student’s development, but also aids in helping find his or her passion. Personally, I took a human geography GenEd last semester just for fun, and to fill a GenEd requirement. I ended up really liking enjoying it, and will take another Geo course next semester. If I equally enjoy that, I may even consider minoring in the field.

  4. I agree that Gen Eds are more beneficial than, it seems, a lot of students give them credit for. I would much rather take Math 34 and boost my GPA, as well as more fully understand the fundamentals of handling money than take only specialized courses in my major within my first few semesters. Gen Eds really round out our understanding of the world and how it works, and help us appreciated different fields. Plus, the it gives the fixed-term professors an opportunity to gain experience in their field and boost their resumes. I’d like to see the difference in cost for the student as well as the university, but the cost seems completely marginal to cut out only a few classes and I also get the feeling that the quality of our education might also be somewhat sacrificed.

  5. I understand the frustration with GenEd’s from a student standpoint. It seems like we’re spending money to take courses on something that won’t help us once we graduate. However, considering something like 80% percent of students change their majors at some point, it seems more cost efficient (for students) to invest in credits that can carry over to a different major (like GenEds), whereas students who take only specialized courses in their field would have to completely restart their education in order to change majors.

  6. For me personally, I really don’t have a problem with Gen eds because it gives you a chance to learn something new outside of your major or helps you to brush up on some needed skills. But i also understand why some kids don’t want to take them and see them as a waste of time. Honestly i don’t care how much it costs it costs the university to cut general education courses because it costs me more to take them.

Speak Your Mind

Skip to toolbar