WHITE HOUSE SCORECARD TESTIMONY Submitted by: Thomas P. Foley President MOUNT ALOYSIUS COLLEGE January 28, 2014
Contents Section 1:
The Scorecard: Special Issues For Baccalaureate/Associate Class Institutions...................................... p. 02 Section 2:
Solutions..................................................... p. 14 Section 3:
Student Profiles: Profiles of Individual Students Who “Don’t Count”................. p. 17 Section 4:
College Profile: Mount Aloysius College........................... p. 29
2
1. Special Issues
1
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
THE SCORECARD SPECIAL ISSUES FOR BACCALAUREATE/ASSOCIATE CLASS INSTITUTIONS
3
1. Special Issues
M
2. Solutions
ost of the suggested scorecards use metrics for graduation rates that dramatically and unfairly favor institutions that serve traditional-age college students who have college-graduate parents, who come from financiallysecure backgrounds and who are able to devote full time to their education. Put another way, most available “scorecards” on graduation rates penalize institutions that serve firstgeneration, lower-income, mature, part-time working and two-year degree seeking students. In fact, most scorecards don’t even pretend to measure these “forgotten” students who fit into these groups at all. Two-year degree seeking students, transfer students (in or out), mature students (who tend not to follow traditional 4 and 6-year
3. Student Profiles
trajectories) are simply not accounted for at all in most of the measures that are on the educational market. Most traditional and highly selective institutions—because they serve a demographic very different from these “forgotten” students, and because they represent the classic four-year, residential model—are not subject to these same built-in Scorecard “measurement” penalties. If the current available metrics are applied as a way of sorting out federal financial aid or as a way to “rank” colleges (without a “degree of difficulty” index, see 2.1, p. 16), it will effectively discourage the recruitment and education of these “forgotten” students—the very students at the top of the priority list set out by the President.
4. College Profile
1.1 Special Issues for Baccalaureate/ Associate Class Institutions
4
1. Special Issues
1.1 Special Issues for Baccalaureate/ Associate Class Institutions
2. Solutions
L
3. Student Profiles
et me suggest several specific ways that these metrics adversely affect the outcomes for higher education institutions with a profile like Mount Aloysius that: offer both 2-year and 4-year degrees, have a more fluid population of transfer-in and transfer-out students than more traditional institutions; serve a much higher percentage of older “mature” students, more economically-insecure students, and students who are first-generation to college (all groups at higher risk of attrition or completion beyond the 6-year measurement window). Each of these categories results in arbitrary and misleading reductions in
4. College Profile
scorecard graduation rates for institutions like us— effectively suppressing the graduation rate for institutions that share our profile. To understand the full suppressive effect of scorecard metrics for institutions with a profile like Mount Aloysius, consider the following chart of alternative measures that provides a very different and, we believe, a more accurate assessment of graduation rate success.
T
his chart compares four currently available graduation metrics that are increasingly inclusive—including a much higher percentage of college students than just those in traditional four-year, residentiallybased schools.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
5
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
Perhaps what is most perplexing and indeed ironic about the Scorecard graduation rate measure is that it undermines the very goals that the Administration has outlined for higher education (i.e. promoting 2-year degree
3. Student Profiles
programs, and increasing accessibility). It does so by penalizing the very institutions whose work most closely aligns with these goals, as the following three examples, show.
4. College Profile
1.1 Special Issues for Baccalaureate/ Associate Class Institutions
6
1. Special Issues
1.2 Scorecard doesn’t count 2-Year Degree Students
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
In spite of the Administration’s push to promote 2-year degrees as part of its workforce preparedness goals, the Scorecard unfairly treats institutions offering 2-year degrees in at least three ways.
F
irst, 2-year degree completion is not even counted in the Scorecard (if it were, that single change would increase the Mount Aloysius Scorecard graduation rate by 15 percentage points).
S
econd, students who begin as 2-year degree candidates but switch and graduate with a 4-year degree are still not counted by the Scorecard (they are not counted at all in their original 2-year program and remain uncounted even though they graduate with the 4-year degree). Institutions like Mount Aloysius are subject to a measurement penalty that, by definition, can never be applied to 4-year only institutions.
4. College Profile
T
hird, it should also be noted that the less common case of 4-year degree candidates who switches to and completes a 2-year degree instead are counted as “failed to graduate” in 6 years— so also have a negative impact on graduation rates in spite of having completed a degree. These are typically lowerincome students who have to leave school to earn more money before continuing on to complete their 4-year degree.
I
n a real sense then, institutions that offer both 2- and 4-year degrees get the worst of both worlds from the Scorecard’s metrics. The students who enter as 2-year degree candidates and instead complete a 4-year degree are not counted. And entering 4-year students, who instead opt for the 2-year degree, are also not counted in the Scorecard.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
7
1. Special Issues
T
2. Solutions
he Scorecard’s treatment of transfer students provides another example of how its metrics suppress the graduation rate of institutions with a profile like Mount Aloysius, casting them in a negative light when compared to more traditional 4-year schools. For purposes of graduation rates, the Scorecard “counts out” all students transferring out of an institution—considering them non-completers in perpetuity—and does not even allow transfer-in students to be “counted in” when they complete a degree.
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
It is important to remember that students transfer typically for one of four reasons: moving on from community college; health or family issues; financial needs; returning after a long absence (all groups prioritized in the President’s higher-education proposals). This means that for institutions with a higher population of transfer students, the Scorecard again offers a “worst of both worlds” approach when calculating graduation rates. And once again, more traditional schools are protected from a suppressive bias of the Scorecard based solely on the fact that their demographic profile includes comparatively few transfer students.
1.3 Scorecard doesn’t count Transfer Students
8
1. Special Issues
1.4 Scorecard unfairly treats LowIncome and FirstGeneration Students
2. Solutions
Y
3. Student Profiles
et another example of the mismatch between the Scorecard’s metrics and the Administration’s higher education goals involves the President’s signature issue of increasing college accessibility. The Administration has given priority to opening college to students in groups that traditionally have lower graduation success rates. Specifically, the Administration has targeted lower-income students and first generation to college students (44% lower graduation rate than non-first generation, more advantaged students)1, and non-traditionalage students (14% lower graduation rate than traditional-age students)2. While Institutions like Mount Aloysius already serve these higher-risk
4. College Profile
populations (see demographic profile of Mount Aloysius student body, see 4.3, p. 32, especially: 41% within 150% of federal poverty rate, 59% first-generation to college, 31% mature students) and are making an important contribution to the Administration’s accessibility goals, they end up grouped together by the Scorecard with more traditional schools that do not serve these groups. By grouping together all institutions in a single comparison without regard to the degree-of-difficulty of the populations served the Scorecard damages institutions already committed to accessibility. Consider a potential student who decides not to enroll in a school because of the poor impression created by
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
9
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
the Scorecard’s undifferentiated comparison; or the students who are misled by the Scorecard’s un-nuanced comparison into rejecting the school best equipped to maximize their chances for success. Or further, consider the donor misled into withholding support for an institution, based on a negative perception created by the unfair nature of the Scorecard’s comparisons. The tables on the next page demonstrate how dramatically the impression of an institution with our profile changes depending upon the comparison cohort chosen. The underachiever depicted by the undifferentiated Scorecard comparison gains near parity with the national graduation rate when both 2 and 4-year degrees are counted, and becomes an
3. Student Profiles
overachiever when viewed using the more refined lens of the Carnegie Classification cohort comparison.
T
he clear message is that a true understanding of an institution’s success is reached by comparing it to similar institutions that serve students of the same degree-of-difficulty.
4. College Profile
1.4 Scorecard unfairly treats LowIncome and FirstGeneration Students
We are persuaded—by the Administration’s public statements and budget positions on higher education (Pell support in particular)— that the Administration is determined to reach some fair level of comparison. My concern is that none of the measures advanced or generated by the Department of Education (so far) actually reflects these important distinctions.
1.) Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low Income, First-Generation Students, 2008, p.2. 2.) Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Completing College: A National View of Student Attainment Rates, November 2012, p.24.
10
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
1.4 Scorecard unfairly treats LowIncome and FirstGeneration Students
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
11
1. Special Issues
I
2. Solutions
n summary, the Scorecard not only undermines the Administration’s own goals for higher education (increasing both enrollment in two-year degree programs and access for underserved groups), but it then unfairly creates a negative and potentially damaging perception of those institutions whose missions are most closely aligned with the Administration’s goals.
3. Student Profiles
It does so by the unfair metrics of its calculations (the charts above still don’t reflect in any way “degree of difficulty”) and by the ill-considered nature of its comparisons.
4. College Profile
1.5 Summary
12
1. Special Issues
1.6 Summary
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
P
erhaps a helpful analogy for portraying the deficiencies of the Scorecard’s graduation metrics would be to imagine a box score for a basketball game that did not record the scoring statistics for… • Players who are non-starters—even if they play most of the game: in higher education, these would be our transfer, our spring-enrollees, our part-time students, our mature students. • Any player on the team, even if he is a starter, who has transferred in from another school.
• Any player, even if she is the best player on the team, who switches positions during the game: think 2-year degree students who switch to a 4-year program, or 4-year degree students who switch and complete a 2-year degree. • Any scoring by any player that occurs in overtime: think students who graduate outside the 6-year/150% normal time window, typically single parents, mature students, lower income.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
13
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
O
bviously, such box-score reckoning would prove a poor gauge of both player performance and the quality of the basketball program. In this analogy, I don’t mean to ignore the realities of graduation rates outside the 6 year time frame—they are, of course, significantly lower in general. But if you decide not to include them at all, then we will never know who has created the best model for serving all these groups—mature, transfer, single parent, lower-income students—and you will discourage the very institutions who are invested in educating harder-to-serve students now.
A
t Mount Aloysius, that has been our mission since seven Sisters of Mercy came from Dublin, Ireland in 1853,
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
discovered that no one was educating young girls, and built a school on the top of a southern Allegheny mountain peak to do just that. As needs changed, so did they. They moved on to educating young women, they built the first junior college in Pennsylvania, and now educate young men and women from largely rural backgrounds, from families with little history of higher education and well below average national (and Pennsylvania) family incomes. In our own Carnegie Classification group—people most like us in that they offer 2 and 4-year degrees— we are clearly significantly better than the mean at graduating our students— even before we count transfers, factor in degree of difficulty, etc.
1.6 Summary
14
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
2 SOLUTIONS
15
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
T
he analysis above suggests the need for numerous changes to the Scorecard’s metrics and comparisons. Three solutions come to mind that would improve the Scorecard’s accuracy and utility. The first two are relatively simple fixes, while the third is more involved.
O
f the simpler fixes, the first, would have the Scorecard include in its total graduation rate number both 2 and 4-year graduates (the IPEDS number), all transfer-in students (data by institution), as well as transfer-out students who complete degrees (the National Student Clearinghouse number). These changes would provide a more accurate result for the student success rate at
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
institutions with our profile (see chart 1.1, p. 5).
2.1
T
Solutions:
he second relatively easy fix would be to create break-out cohort comparisons that would allow the Scorecard user to see how institutions perform when compared to others with a similar profile (like the Carnegie Classification profiles). This would help overcome the unfair negative perceptions that result from undifferentiated comparison, while giving the user a genuine assessment of institutional performance.
• Count both 2 and 4-yr Graduates • Count Transfer Students • Use Carnegie Classification Cohorts • Adopt “acuity level” model
16
1. Special Issues
2.1 Solutions: • Count both 2 and 4-yr Graduates • Count Transfer Students • Use Carnegie Classification Cohorts • Adopt “acuity level” model
T
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
he third and most important remedy for the problem of the Scorecard’s undifferentiated comparisons would be to adapt a measurement tool based on the health industry’s “patient acuity” model. In the healthcare industry, patients are assigned “acuity levels” (based on a risk-adjustment methodology), numbers that reflect a patient’s condition upon admission to a facility. The intent of this classification system is to consider all mitigating factors when measuring outcomes and thus to provide consumers accurate information when comparing providers.
4. College Profile
A similar model could be adopted for measuring higher education outcomes. This would allow such factors as students’ family incomes, whether they are first generation to college, their SAT scores, etc., to be considered when measuring higher education outcomes. Such “degree-of-difficulty” factors, like “acuity levels,” would provide consumers accurate information for purposes of comparison.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
17
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
STUDENT PROFILES Profiles of Individual Students Who “Don’t Count”
4. College Profile
3
18
1. Special Issues
Student Profiles
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
I
t might be interesting to move from the abstract world of numbers and consider individually the kinds of real students that the Scorecard decides “don’t count” (i.e. don’t fit the metric of first time/full-time freshmen bachelor degree recipients who graduate within 6-years).
These are actual Mount Aloysius students, past and present, none of whom are counted in the traditional Scorecard metric. As far as the current Scorecard is concerned, these students “do not exist.”
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
19
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Profiles of Individual Students Who “Don’t Count” 3.1 Two-year students.....................................................Michelle 3.2 Initial 2-year students who switch to a 4-year program...................... Lyndsay & Emily 3.3 Initial 4-year students who opt for a 2-year program........................................ Maureen 3.4 Transfer-in students..................................................... Bryan 3.5 Transfer-out students..................................... Ryan & Gabbi 3.6 Students who are intentionally part-time because of other obligations................................................ Heidi 3.7 Mature students who take longer than 6 years to graduate............................................................... Walter 3.8 Single-parent students................................................. Renae 3.9 Students who drop in-and-out of college for a variety of reasons..........................................................Jackie
20
1. Special Issues
3.1 Two-year students
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Michelle is an adult student with grown children pursuing her dream of becoming a nurse after raising her kids. She did exceptionally well in the 2-year nursing program, tutoring many of her peers, even becoming a leader among her fellow students and within the Nursing Student Organization—which regularly wins our best community service campus group award.
She was chosen to be the student speaker at the Nursing Pinning Ceremony and delivered a well-regarded speech about the challenges along the road to her RN degree. In that speech she spoke of the challenges, teamwork, accomplishments, and joy that she and her classmates experienced during their time together in the nursing program.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
21
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Lyndsay and Emily are twin sisters.
They both matriculated in the associate degree nursing program. They began as pre-nursing students in the fall of 2006 and started level one of the program in the spring of 2007. Both failed out of the program during the first semester. While they initially considered withdrawing from the college, the realization that they had chosen nursing for the wrong reasons led them to stay in school but switch their majors. Lyndsay went directly into the Bachelor of Arts, English program. She wrote for the student newspaper and graduated in December of 2010. She is currently at Philadelphia University in the Master of Science, Fashion Apparel Studies program. Mary took education courses, considering Elementary and Secondary Education with an English Concentration. Ultimately, she decided to major solely in English and she graduated in May 2011. She was the Costume Designer/ Manager for the theatre program for two years and currently operates Little Bird Vintage, an online vintage clothing business.
3.2 Initial 2-year students who switch to a 4-year program
22
1. Special Issues
3.3 Initial 4-year students who opt for a 2-year program
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Maureen came to Mount Aloysius as a
traditional freshman in the Bachelor of Arts, American Sign Language Program. During the fall of her senior year, she became ill. Realizing she would need to take time off to focus on her health, she moved into the Associate Degree program. Upon full recovery, she plans to return to Mount Aloysius to finish her Bachelor degree. In the meantime, she has earned a degree for the work she has already completed.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
23
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Bryan, a student-athlete with a scholarship at a
Division I school, transferred to Mount Aloysius second semester freshman year in search of a better institutional fit. Bryan excelled in the classroom, earning a 3.4 cumulative GPA in his business/accounting bachelor’s degree and a 3.9 in his MBA program. Bryan also excelled as a student-athlete, becoming a leader on and off the field among his peers on the baseball team. Bryan was the national Division III leader in stolen bases in his senior year. He mentors current student-athletes on his frequent visits back from his job in Maryland.
3.4 Transfer-in students
24
1. Special Issues
3.5 Transfer-out students
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Ryan came to Mount Aloysius from the Pittsburgh
area to play basketball and study Psychology. He decided to transfer after two successful years at the college (in the classroom and on the court) in order to pursue his interest in studying nutrition, a major that Mount Aloysius does not offer. He transferred to a nearby state school and is on track to graduate on time with a bachelor’s degree this spring. Ryan appreciated the start he got at Mount Aloysius and returns periodically for visits.
Gabrielle was an inquisitive student with broad interests who came to Mount Aloysius from about 10 miles away. She began at Mount Aloysius as an English major before switching to an Education major with an English concentration. Through her participation in theatre at Mount Aloysius and with a local summer community theater group, Gabby discovered that theater was her true passion. As a result, she transferred from Mount Aloysius (which only offers a theater minor) to a nearby state school that offers a theater major. She was successful at her new school, completing her bachelor’s degree within four years of first enrolling at Mount Aloysius College and helps out in theater productions at the College when she can.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
25
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
Heidi is employed full-time and is also a mother
who lives in a nearby community. She attends Mount Aloysius part-time. Heidi began her journey with Mount Aloysius as a student in our Associate Degree Nursing program. She attended as a full-time student her first year but continued as a part-time student, until graduating with her associate degree in Nursing in December 2012. She continues as a part-time student now, taking credits towards her BSN.
4. College Profile
3.6 Students who are intentionally part-time because of other obligations
26
1. Special Issues
3.7 Mature students who take longer than 6 years to graduate
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Walter
Before matriculated in the Business Administration program in 2006, he had attended Dickinson College, Gettysburg College, Hampton – Sydney College, and The Pennsylvania State University. Walter’s family had owned a multi-generational food distribution business that was forced into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. As a result of this economic difficulty, Walter was forced to withdraw for a period of time to assist his family. He later returned to Mount Aloysius on a part-time basis and graduated in May of 2013.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
27
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
Renae was non-traditional (mature) student, from the local community who enrolled in the Associate of Science, Physical Therapist Assistant program in the fall of 2009. Renae had a bachelor’s degree from The Pennsylvania State University which she earned immediately after high school.
At the time of her enrollment in the Physical Therapist Assistant program, Renae was supporting a teenage daughter by working as a bus driver and as a massage therapist. She graduated magna cum laude in August of 2011. She was a member of Phi Theta Kappa honor society and of Vox Nova, the college’s choral society.
4. College Profile
3.8 Singleparent students
28
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
3.9
Jackie, from Portage, PA, first began taking classes
Students who drop in-and-out of college for a variety of reasons
Once re-enrolled for a third time, she completed an associate degree and then “chipped away” at a bachelor’s degree. She graduated with her bachelor’s degree in December of 2012.
in 1992. Because of work conflicts, she was forced to withdraw. She returned to the college but was once again forced to withdraw, this time because her ailing parents required her attention.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
29
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
COLLEGE PROFILE
Mount Aloysius College
4. College Profile
4
30
1. Special Issues
4.1 Mount Aloysius College
2. Solutions
M
3. Student Profiles
ount Aloysius College dates its founding to the establishment of St. Aloysius Academy by the Sisters of Mercy in 1853. These Irish-born missionary sisters were an offshoot of the first Sisters of Mercy convent established in the United States—in Pittsburgh. The Sisters came to western Pennsylvania with the mission of providing educational opportunities to young women where none existed. The Sisters travelled by Conestoga wagon and stage coach to the remote area of Loretto, Pennsylvania where they opened the first “academy” in the region solely dedicated to the education of young women.
4. College Profile
I
n spite of the many changes the college has seen during its 161-year history—the name change to “Mount” Aloysius Academy, its transition first to a junior college and then four-year college— our institutional mission has remained essentially unchanged. We continue our founders’ mission to strengthen our community by providing affordable and accessible educational opportunities to an underserved population. That founding commitment finds its expression today in the following excerpt from our college’s Statement of Philosophy. The following profiles bear witness to our ongoing commitment to our founders’ mission.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
31
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
A
s a Catholic College founded and sponsored by the Religious Sisters of Mercy, Mount Aloysius College provides a setting in which students are encouraged to synthesize faith with learning, to develop competence with compassion, to put talents and gifts at the service of others, and to begin to assume leadership in the world community. With emphasis on values of justice, hospitality, mercy, and service, the College’s liberal arts core curriculum provides the necessary basis for leadership and the knowledge and skills for success in a wide range of professions. While the academic focus is paramount at Mount Aloysius, the College also considers spiritual, cultural, social and personal growth as essential elements in the development of the student.
4. College Profile
4.2 Statement of Philosophy
32
1. Special Issues
4.3 College Profile
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Mount Aloysius College: Student Body Economic Profile • 59% of Mount Aloysius full-time students are first generation to college. • 23% of Mount Aloysius students come from a family with an income under $20,770. • 39% of Mount Aloysius students come from a family with an income under $37,500. • 41% of Mount Aloysius students come from a family with an income at or below 150% of the federal poverty level as determined by income for a family of four. • 94% of Mount Aloysius students qualify for need-based financial aid. • 55% of Mount Aloysius students are Pell Grant eligible; of this group, 51% receive the highest Pell Grant amount. • 82% of Mount Aloysius students work at least a part-time job while attending Mount Aloysius.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
33
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Mount Aloysius College: Student Body Demographic Profile • 96% of Mount Aloysius students are from Pennsylvania; 92% are from Western Pennsylvania; 58% come from Blair and Cambria Counties (per capita incomes $22,800 and $21,278 respectively). • 59% of Mount Aloysius students have majors in the Health Sciences (of these, 78% in 2-year programs). • 31% of Mount Aloysius students are non-traditional (mature) students, excluding dual-enrollment. • The average student SAT (verbal and math) score is 933. • 8% of Mount Aloysius students are single-parents. • 24% of Mount Aloysius non-traditional (mature) students are single parents. • 49% of Mount Aloysius students graduate with an associate degree; 45% with a bachelor degree and 6% graduate with a master’s degree. • 100% job placement rate for Nursing graduates, 90+% job placement rate for allied health degree graduates. • 100% of Mount Aloysius students perform community service with over 240 local organizations. • 44% increase in first time/full time enrollment and 22% increase in total head count over last 10 years.
4.3 College Profile
34
1. Special Issues
4.3 College Profile
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Mount Aloysius College Costs: Value and Values • Mount Aloysius College is one of the least expensive of the over 80 private four-year colleges in Pennsylvania (AICUP annual data). • Mount Aloysius College total cost (tuition, room and board, fees) averages $10,000-$20,000 less than the two other private colleges in our region. • The total package at Mount Aloysius College (tuition, room and board, fees) will continue to be less than $30,000 in the 2013-2014 academic year (under $31,300 for four-year nursing students, who have extra lab and clinical fees). • $10,000 is the average Mount Aloysius outright grant to students. • The Pennsylvania Secretary of Commerce and Economic Development described Mount Aloysius College as the, “right model for higher education—balancing its books every year and keeping total costs low.” • Mount Aloysius College was cited by the Association of Independent College and Universities in Pennsylvania as a model of quality education at an affordable cost. • Standard and Poor’s Higher Education Rating Service awarded Mount Aloysius College an A- rating for its long-term record of providing quality education at an affordable cost with a consistently balanced budget.
Scorecard Testimony | Presented by President Thomas P. Foley
35
1. Special Issues
2. Solutions
3. Student Profiles
4. College Profile
Mount Aloysius College Costs: Value and Values (cont.)
4.3
• Mount Aloysius College has been named: a national College of Distinction for its “engaged students, great teaching, vibrant communities, and successful outcomes;” a member of the 2013 President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll; and a Military Friendly College by G.I. Jobs.
College Profile
Thomas P. Foley, 13th President of Mount Aloysius College On August 1, 2010, Thomas P. Foley took office as the 13th President of Mount Aloysius College. Tom Foley has been frequently honored in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for his leadership, his work ethic and his innovative approach to problem solving, and he has received dozens of awards for his service in both the public and non-profit sectors. Raised in a family of 12 children, Foley won scholarships to Dartmouth College (summa cum laude) and Yale Law School, where he served as an editor of the Yale Journal of World Public Order, as coach of the undergraduate debate team, and as a member of the university’s championship rugby team. Foley worked in both the public and non-profit sectors, prior to joining academia. Most recently, he spent more than a decade as the CEO of the American Red Cross in Southeastern Pennsylvania (2004-2010) and as President of the United Way of Pennsylvania (2000-2004). He also served in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, as legislative aide and counsel to Congressman James M. Shannon and then-Senator Joseph R. Biden. Foley spent seven years of his career working for Governor Robert P. Casey, whom he served in two cabinetlevel posts, including as the youngest Secretary of Labor and Industry in the history of the Commonwealth. Prior to his government service, Foley was a Graduate Fellow at University College, Dublin, Ireland, after which he spent two years as counsel to the Nobel Peace Prize winning Peace People in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was the first
American elected to the group’s Executive Board, initiated their award-winning integrated sports program and was the cofounder of the widely effective (and still active) Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ). President Foley is the author of over 75 articles, op-ed and journal pieces on a variety of topics, including issues related to work, job training, community service and public security. He has testified in Washington and Harrisburg on matters of public policy on over 30 occasions, appeared often on TV and radio and keynoted numerous events in several states and in Northern Ireland. He is a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and has chaired eight statewide Boards and Commissions, including the Governor’s Task Force on Workforce Development, PennSERVE, and the State Board of Vocational Rehabilitation. Tom and his wife, Michele, are the parents of three sons — Thomas, Matt and Andrew. Mount Aloysius College, founded in 1853 by Sisters of Mercy, who emigrated from Dublin, Ireland, encourages students “to synthesize faith with learning, to develop competence with compassion, to put talents and gifts at the service of others and to assume leadership in the world community.” Like its President, 60% of Mount Aloysius students are the first generation in their families to attend college, where today they can choose from over 70 programs of study and develop their skills to a state of the art level.
Mount Aloysius College founded 1853 by Sisters of Mercy who emigrated from Dublin, Ireland. The College encourages students “to synthesize faith with learning, to develop competence with compassion, to put talents and gifts at the service of others and to assume leadership in the world community.� Today at Mount Aloysius, students can choose from over 70 programs of study and develop their skills to a state of the art level. 60% of Mount Aloysius students represent the first generation in their families to attend college. The beautiful and historic campus is located on 193 acres in central Pennsylvania, at the summit of the Alleghenies in Cresson.
Mount Aloysius College | 7373 Admiral Peary Highway, Cresson, PA 16630-1999 | www.mtaloy.edu January 28, 2014