From the "You can't make this up" Scott Cowen files

[jonathanjoseph]

Tulane University President Scott Cowen has been named to the Presidential Innovation Lab, a groundbreaking effort by the American Council on Education (ACE) to examine how new educational technologies such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) can help more Americans, especially low-income young adults and non-traditional students, earn a college degree.

Proof that Scott Cowen's agents and PR folks are underpaid. I mean, between killing CS and very recently stating "Tulane will be a fast follower with digital strategy", could there possibly be a President more clueless about innovation?

http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_07032013.cfm

[sader24]

This would essentially be like hiring Edwin Edwards to run a Government Watchdog Group promoting Good Government and Fair Practices.

[jonathanjoseph]

This would essentially be like hiring Edwin Edwards to run a Government Watchdog Group promoting Good Government and Fair Practices.

Now THAT is funny.

[Fred Dowler]

Actually, this comes across to me as something of a scam. The point should not be just being able to say "here's how we can more easily have more people getting a degree." The point really should be how we can help more people get quality training and instruction and acquire necessary and marketable specific skills and be able to fill needs that are there to be filled and so that U.S. society can compete in the global marketplace.

[Robert1969]

This would essentially be like hiring Edwin Edwards to run a Government Watchdog Group promoting Good Government and Fair Practices.

That might be a fair comparison, but for all of Edwards' shenanigans he was a kazillion times better administrator than Cowen.

[DfromCT]

Actually, this comes across to me as something of a scam. The point should not be just being able to say "here's how we can more easily have more people getting a degree." The point really should be how we can help more people get quality training and instruction and acquire necessary and marketable specific skills and be able to fill needs that are there to be filled and so that U.S. society can compete in the global marketplace.

Most experts agree that one conundrum facing education is the trend towards online courses vs. the need for social (interactive) skills in the 21st century. Yes, the education bubble may pop, and more widespread acceptance of remote/online education may come about, but we need to figure out how to do this in a way that promotes teamwork and networking.

[Fred Dowler]

Actually, this comes across to me as something of a scam. The point should not be just being able to say "here's how we can more easily have more people getting a degree." The point really should be how we can help more people get quality training and instruction and acquire necessary and marketable specific skills and be able to fill needs that are there to be filled and so that U.S. society can compete in the global marketplace.

Most experts agree that one conundrum facing education is the trend towards online courses vs. the need for social (interactive) skills in the 21st century. Yes, the education bubble may pop, and more widespread acceptance of remote/online education may come about, but we need to figure out how to do this in a way that promotes teamwork and networking.

The education bubble, btw, is bursting. That's happening already, no question. The notion of getting a degree just have a degree is out of the question for most middle-class families.

What matters is having training that directly leads to something specific so that you can make some income or else the education is just not worth nearly the sky-high cost. Does anyone think that Scott Cowen gets it at all on that? This piece sure doesn't make it sound like he does.

[jonathanjoseph]

The education bubble, btw, is bursting. That's happening already, no question. The notion of getting a degree just have a degree is out of the question for most middle-class families.

What matters is having training that directly leads to something specific so that you can make some income or else the education is just not worth nearly the sky-high cost. Does anyone think that Scott Cowen gets it at all on that? This piece sure doesn't make it sound like he does.

That's a great and accurate take. If SC understood what was happening, he would be getting rid of things that don't lead directly to income (community service) and emphasizing things that do (engineering). SC did exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

[tpstulane]

Opt out of National Rankings and eliminate ACT and SAT scores to prevent future cheating from the wealthy. Amazing this guy got to the level of president of Tulane University.

https://www.higheredtoday.org/2019/04/0 ... s-scandal/

If the top colleges and universities would take a principled stand and opt out of ranking enterprises like U.S. News, there would likely be a mass exodus of others. Colleges and universities would be encouraged to define, demonstrate, and measure their distinctive value in more meaningful and individual ways.

Another promising path is to rethink the usefulness of ACT and SAT scores and possibly replace them with new criteria for whether prospective students have the leadership skills and other competencies to succeed in college, life, and the workplace.

[wave97]

This fool is a moth, he can't help himself. He feels the need to enter the glaring light whether he has anything to contribute, or not.
JUST GO AWAY!

[Pepper]

Leadership skills? He wouldn't' have graduated middle school if that was a criteria.

[HoustonWave]

Mr. Blowhard surfaces again. He keeps making speeches and writing op-eds as though anyone would pay any attention to him. It’s not surprising that he would want to end the USN&WR rankings, since we fell so far in those rankings during his tenure at Tulane—heaven forbid any measures or accountability. Cowen is an embarrassment to higher education in general, and to Tulane University in particular. I guess his next op-ed will be his ideas on university budget reforms—what a clown he is.

[golfnut69]

SC, needs only few things..a last meal, blinfold, cigarette, cigar or vapor...and ya know the rest...I still think he and marge need to be investigated, the FEMA and insurance money allotted Tulane, does not seem to balance

[Aberzombie1892]

Mr. Blowhard surfaces again. He keeps making speeches and writing op-eds as though anyone would pay any attention to him. It’s not surprising that he would want to end the USN&WR rankings, since we fell so far in those rankings during his tenure at Tulane—heaven forbid any measures or accountability. Cowen is an embarrassment to higher education in general, and to Tulane University in particular. I guess his next op-ed will be his ideas on university budget reforms—what a clown he is.

To be fair, US News ranking variables have a significant impact on how Tulane recruits students and which students enroll. As has been established through viewing various third party studies on the incomes of families in regard to colleges, Tulane is known as an institution that provides large "merit" scholarships to students with high ACT/SAT from wealthy families in order to entice them to attend Tulane when they would be admitted but not receive a scholarship at (arguably) more well regarded universities that primarily only give need based aid (i.e. Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc.). Tulane cares about those high scores since it impacts Tulane's US News rank, however, if the US News wasn't so influential and high profile universities avoided it, Tulane could take a more wholistic approach to recruiting students and there would certainly be more economic diversity at Tulane.

Basically, he has a valid point - especially for an institution like Tulane that spends a lot of scholarship resources on merit scholarships to convince wealthy students to attend for the purposes of (legally) buying high scores solely for the purposes of college ranking systems - but it's probably falling of deaf ears.

EDIT - Also, people can blame him for Tulane's fall in ranking, but Tulane does not have the endowment to compete at that level and it exists in a state that, to put it politely, does not emphasize the value of either education or research.

[mbawavefan12]

Mr. Blowhard surfaces again. He keeps making speeches and writing op-eds as though anyone would pay any attention to him. It’s not surprising that he would want to end the USN&WR rankings, since we fell so far in those rankings during his tenure at Tulane—heaven forbid any measures or accountability. Cowen is an embarrassment to higher education in general, and to Tulane University in particular. I guess his next op-ed will be his ideas on university budget reforms—what a clown he is.

To be fair, US News ranking variables have a significant impact on how Tulane recruits students and which students enroll. As has been established through viewing various third party studies on the incomes of families in regard to colleges, Tulane is known as an institution that provides large "merit" scholarships to students with high ACT/SAT from wealthy families in order to entice them to attend Tulane when they would be admitted but not receive a scholarship at (arguably) more well regarded universities that primarily only give need based aid (i.e. Ivies, Stanford, MIT, etc.). Tulane cares about those high scores since it impacts Tulane's US News rank, however, if the US News wasn't so influential and high profile universities avoided it, Tulane could take a more wholistic approach to recruiting students and there would certainly be more economic diversity at Tulane.

Basically, he has a valid point - especially for an institution like Tulane that spends a lot of scholarship resources on merit scholarships to convince wealthy students to attend for the purposes of (legally) buying high scores solely for the purposes of college ranking systems - but it's probably falling of deaf ears.

EDIT - Also, people can blame him for Tulane's fall in ranking, but Tulane does not have the endowment to compete at that level and it exists in a state that, to put it politely, does not emphasize the value of either education or research.

Cowen played a major role in not growing the endowment. He totally mismanaged the medical school, which was perhaps the biggest drain on the endowment. He also missed out big time on STEM investment, whose grads, companies and families are also a great source of growth. Community involvement is great and all but not great for a school’s growth.

[DfromCT]

Our peers grew their endowments at multiples of the growth rate of the endowment under SC over the same time frame.

[Aberzombie1892]

Our peers grew their endowments at multiples of the growth rate of the endowment under SC over the same time frame.

But that's not true, as Tulane's growth was in line with the other high profile southern private schools (Emory, WashU, Vanderbilt, Rice and Duke).

From an ancient thread:

Looking at a snapshot of the endowments of the Tulane's historical competition in 1998 - 1998 was selected because that was when Cowen became Tulane's president - Emory had the 5th largest endowment overall at $5.1B, WashU was number 10 with $3.4B, Rice was 13 with $2.7B, Vanderbilt was 19 with $1.5B, and Duke was 23 with $1.3B. At that same time, Tulane was number 76 with $500M, so it seems like Tulane was significantly behind even before Cowen came aboard. Glancing at the 2015 endowment numbers, in regard increases of the endowments of the other schools, Emory's has not increased that much ($5.1 to $6.6B), WashU has doubled ($3.4B to $6.8B), Rice has a little more than doubled ($2.7 to $5.5B), Vanderbilt has almost tripled ($1.5 to $4.1B), and Duke has multiplied x5+ ($1.3 to $7.2B). Considering that Tulane's endowment has more than doubled since 1998, its increase since that time is largely in line with the increases at WashU and Rice, significantly better than the increase at Emory, and significantly lags the increases Vanderbilt and Duke.

The issue with Tulane was that it was starting with a lot less than those schools.

[Aberzombie1892]

Cowen played a major role in not growing the endowment. He totally mismanaged the medical school, which was perhaps the biggest drain on the endowment. He also missed out big time on STEM investment, whose grads, companies and families are also a great source of growth. Community involvement is great and all but not great for a school’s growth.

The STEM thing is more complicated than that, as it is not easy to shift an expensive private university that doesn't emphasize STEM topics to one that does. People with a 33 on the ACT and want to major in STEM aren't going to randomly decide that they want to attend Tulane over schools that specialize in that area (i.e. Georgia Tech, MIT, etc.).

[DfromCT]

Our peers grew their endowments at multiples of the growth rate of the endowment under SC over the same time frame.

But that's not true, as Tulane's growth was in line with the other high profile southern private schools (Emory, WashU, Vanderbilt, Rice and Duke).

From an ancient thread:

Looking at a snapshot of the endowments of the Tulane's historical competition in 1998 - 1998 was selected because that was when Cowen became Tulane's president - Emory had the 5th largest endowment overall at $5.1B, WashU was number 10 with $3.4B, Rice was 13 with $2.7B, Vanderbilt was 19 with $1.5B, and Duke was 23 with $1.3B. At that same time, Tulane was number 76 with $500M, so it seems like Tulane was significantly behind even before Cowen came aboard. Glancing at the 2015 endowment numbers, in regard increases of the endowments of the other schools, Emory's has not increased that much ($5.1 to $6.6B), WashU has doubled ($3.4B to $6.8B), Rice has a little more than doubled ($2.7 to $5.5B), Vanderbilt has almost tripled ($1.5 to $4.1B), and Duke has multiplied x5+ ($1.3 to $7.2B). Considering that Tulane's endowment has more than doubled since 1998, its increase since that time is largely in line with the increases at WashU and Rice, significantly better than the increase at Emory, and significantly lags the increases Vanderbilt and Duke.

The issue with Tulane was that it was starting with a lot less than those schools.

You can certainly select the schools that back your argument. Why does Washington University of St Louis make your list? It's not in the South. How about comparing NATIONAL Universities, Stanford, Notre Dame, Rice, Duke, Vandy, etc. You can take a few of your "comps" out and add a few that I think more closely resemble our make up (or at least they did when Eamon Kelly retired and we were #34 on USN&WR rankings) and it's a different story.

Zombie, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pointing out the sample is easily skewered.

[Aberzombie1892]

You can certainly select the schools that back your argument. Why does Washington University of St Louis make your list? It's not in the South. How about comparing NATIONAL Universities, Stanford, Notre Dame, Rice, Duke, Vandy, etc. You can take a few of your "comps" out and add a few that I think more closely resemble our make up (or at least they did when Eamon Kelly retired and we were #34 on USN&WR rankings) and it's a different story.

Zombie, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pointing out the sample is easily skewered.

Of course. Those institutions - Rice, Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, and WashU - are the closest institutions from a geographic standpoint that check all of the below boxes::
1. Members of the AAU
2. Private
3. $100M+/year in research
4. Ranked (relatively) highly in US News National University rankings
5. Recruit student body nationally without an emphasis on in-state students (i.e. less than 40% of the undergraduate student body is from in-state).
6. $1B+ endowment

If we want to say that Tulane shouldn't be compared to those 5 institutions, that's fine, even if it's unclear how that makes sense given how similar they and Tulane are.

Also, how are they not "national" universities? That claim is based on what?

[golfnut69]

You can certainly select the schools that back your argument. Why does Washington University of St Louis make your list? It's not in the South. How about comparing NATIONAL Universities, Stanford, Notre Dame, Rice, Duke, Vandy, etc. You can take a few of your "comps" out and add a few that I think more closely resemble our make up (or at least they did when Eamon Kelly retired and we were #34 on USN&WR rankings) and it's a different story.

Zombie, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pointing out the sample is easily skewered.

Of course. Those institutions - Rice, Duke, Vanderbilt, Emory, and WashU - are the closest institutions from a geographic standpoint that check all of the below boxes::
1. Members of the AAU
2. Private
3. $100M+/year in research
4. Ranked (relatively) highly in US News National University rankings
5. Recruit student body nationally without an emphasis on in-state students (i.e. less than 40% of the undergraduate student body is from in-state).
6. $1B+ endowment

If we want to say that Tulane shouldn't be compared to those 5 institutions, that's fine, even if it's unclear how that makes sense given how similar they and Tulane are.

Also, how are they not "national" universities? That claim is based on what?

https://fox5sandiego.com/2018/09/18/ric ... -students/

[HoustonWave]

Cowen did very little fundraising while he was president—he was too busy lining his pockets serving on corporate boards. During his tenure, Tulane’s academic declines were on par with its athletic disasters. The man was a remarkable failure on all fronts—which in my view gives him the edge over Rufus Harris, as the worst president in Tulane’s history.