Increasing % Pell-- What Does it Tell Us?

Over the last several years, UW-Madison has increased its tuition at a higher rate than its System peers, thanks to the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. That shift has not been accompanied by a decline in the percent of students receiving Pell Grants--in fact there's been a 5.5 percent increase in % Pell since 2000. Some are saying that this means that low-income students have been "held harmless" from the rising tuition, and that further increases would likely not lead to diminished economic diversity on campus. Furthermore, we are told, we can look to the outreach campaigns of institutions like UVA and UNC-Chapel Hill (home to Access UVA and the Carolina Covenant respectively) for models of anti-"sticker shock" programs that "work."

These claims are terrific examples of why it's a bad idea to make causal claims based on correlational data. If you want to make those statements, you can look to those examples and find support for your agenda. But you shouldn't.

In fact, the increase in the percent Pell at UW-Madison over the last few years is consistent with increases in % Pell at many colleges and universities nationwide over that time period. The cause lies not in successful outreach campaigns, or the failure of tuition increases to inhibit student behavior, but mainly in the recession. The recession had two relevant effects: First, many people were laid off-- and thus saw a temporary loss of income. Thus, students from families that in 2007 were not Pell eligible found themselves eligible for the Pell in 2008. The Pell is based on current and not long-term disadvantage. So an increase in % Pell doesn't mean you coaxed "new" low-income students into attending Madison or did a better job retaining those you already enrolled, but rather that a greater proportion of those who were already UW-bound (or already enrolled) now found themselves eligible for the additional help. Second, the Pell reduced the number of jobs available to students not enrolled in college--thus lowering the opportunity costs associated with college (e.g. foregone earnings). This could have independently increased both enrollment and persistence.

Furthermore, during the same time period, as part of the legislation that increased the maximum Pell the federal government also increased the family income (AGI) a student could have and qualify for the Pell-- from $20,000 to $30,000. Thus, a whole bunch more people became Pell-eligible during the period in which the MIU was implemented. And, the maximum Pell was increased-- possibly helping to offset the increase in tuition.

Thus, it should abundantly clear that it would be incorrect to state that the increasing % Pell at UW-Madison over the last several years is evidence that tuition increases do not inhibit enrollment of low-income students and/or that additional investments in need-based financial aid hold students harmless.

Same goes for the "success" of programs like the Carolina Covenant. Don't get me wrong-- the program seems great, and feels great, and the leadership is great. And for sure, the program's data looks nice-- they've seen an uptick in the representation of Pell recipients on campus and increased retention over time. As an evaluation they show better outcomes than prior cohorts of students. But as compelling as those numbers seem to be, they cannot be interpreted as evidence that these changes are attributable to the program itself-- and that's where the burden of proof lies. Indiana saw increases in college enrollment among the children of low-income families when its 21st Century Scholars Program was implemented, but reforms to the k-12 system were made at the same time, and the economy was booming. The program "effects" may have been little more than happy coincidence. We cannot rely on the potential for such happy coincidences when crafting new policies and making decisions about affordability.

It's time to get honest about what data can and cannot tell us. I've heard too many claims around here that it can tell us whatever we want. While that's undoubtedly partially true under the best of circumstances, it is especially true when we take no steps to collect data systematically and use sophisticated tools when analyzing it. If we were really committed to holding students harmless from tuition increases, we'd have commissioned an external evaluation (external= not done by institutional researchers) and made the data available for analysis. There are plenty of talented folks on campus who know how to do this work-- why not ask them to take a look at what happened under MIU?

You have read this article college access / college completion / financial aid / higher education / Indiana / Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / North Carolina / Pell Grant / University of Wisconsin-Madison / UW System / UW-Madison with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2011/03/increasing-pell-what-does-it-tell-us.html. Thanks!

Showing That You Care

Oh how Wisconsin loves its higher education system! Let me count the ways...

1. Today it agreed to pass the responsibility of funding its premier flagship institution (UW-Madison) onto the shoulders of students and families.

2. Yesterday we learned that our promised 2% pay raises (yippee) are no more.

3. Furthermore, all "non-represented" state employees--faculty included-- will have the lovely experience of 8 days without pay during the coming year. This on top of the 2/9 rule that says we can't draw salary for more than 11 out of 12 months!

4. Take a look at how WI is investing its stimulus funds for education. 9 states have had their ARRA applications approved: CA, IL, ME, MN, MS, OR, SD, UT, and WI. Of those 9, 7 plan to spend between 19-38% of those funds on higher education (the most generous are MN and SD). One state, Illinois, plans to throw higher ed 2.4%. And then there's Wisconsin. What, you ask, does Wisconsin intend to do with its stabilization funds for education? 100% will go to k-12.

Hmmmmm......

You have read this article Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / University of Wisconsin / UW-Madison / Wisconsin with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/showing-that-you-care.html. Thanks!

Finding the Truth

The Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE) has released an "executive memo" to the UW System Board of Regents regarding the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates (MIU). It was expertly crafted by our director Noel Radomski. I'd like to share some of its highlights with you here.

"I have spent several months reviewing the MIU proposal, which has included meeting with Chancellor Martin and her senior cabinet; reviewing creative innovations at other universities and systems; and comparing the initiative’s components with the research on potential benefits and unintended consequences. Based on my findings, I strongly encourage you to refer the proposal to a future meeting so that stakeholders at UW–Madison and the UW System can invest more time and energy in crafting a proposal that truly maintains and enhances the university’s quality and affordability."

Noel then states some important facts-- among them are the following descriptions of our economic situations:

1. Due to a worsening economy and falling tax collections, the Wisconsin budget deficit could add as much as a $1.2 billion to a projected state budget deficit already estimated at nearly $6 billion earlier this year (Wisconsin State Journal, May 6, 2009).

2. Wisconsin’s unemployment rate hit 9.4% in April 2009, surpassing the national rate for the first time since June 2007. The state lost a total of 8,700 non-farm jobs in March and has shed more than 112,000 jobs since March 2008 (Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development).

3. The Wisconsin Poverty Report, published this month by the UW–Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, painted a dismal picture of increasing poverty rates in our state and participation in the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

4. In 2006, 20% of Wisconsin residents had incomes in the lowest income quintile compared to only 8.9% of UW–Madison freshmen (University of Wisconsin–Madison).

5. Earlier this week, the Joint Committee on Finance approved an amendment to Governor Jim Doyle’s proposed state budget that shifted Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) revenue from the UW System to the Wisconsin Technical College System; as a result, current estimates predict 7,700 UW System students could see their financial aid packages reduced.

He then goes on to make several suggestions, among them:

1. Require all undergraduates to complete a FAFSA before enrolling at UW–Madison, although an “opt out” option can be added for personal and philosophical reasons.

2. For students from families with incomes of $80,000 or less (or some other number), the proposed tuition surcharge should not be assessed (i.e., a waiver rather than a reimbursement). The reason for this suggested change is to reduce administrative complexities and costs, but more importantly, to send the message to hard-working Wisconsin families that they will not have to pay a tuition surcharge in addition to a tuition increase. The suggestion is aimed at reducing “sticker shock” effects, especially for first generation students.

3. The UW–Madison campus should review other state and campus need-based aid programs (publicly and privately financed efforts) that could serve as a model for the design of a uniquely crafted UW–Madison private-public, need-based aid program. WISCAPE has already completed an environmental scan of innovative and effective public and private need-based programs that could be uniquely designed for Wisconsin.

4. UW–Madison should be asked to design and integrate an accountability system into the MIU proposal, which should include benchmarks and indicators so current and prospective students, parents, grandparents, guardians, campus leaders, the UW System Board of Regents, and elected officials can easily access findings and reports illustrating the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposal.

He closes with the following: "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found" (taken from a report of the Board of Regents in 1894).


Ok-- I think at this point, 'nuff said. It is up to the thoughtful people of the great state of Wisconsin, and their leaders, to bring this one home. Tomorrow (today) I turn my attention to Washington DC and what our national leaders can do to better support our community colleges.

You have read this article Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / University of Wisconsin / UW System / UW-Madison / WISCAPE with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/finding-truth.html. Thanks!

I (Finally) Figured Out Why I Want Tenure

Today was a big day. This morning’s paper ran a story containing quotes from me and from this blog that many of my colleagues will likely view as uncouth. Others will misinterpret it as desire for publicity and name recognition. These folks just don't know me like my family, and particularly my Poppa, does.

To my mind, I had little choice but to do what I did. My University is moving in an untenable direction, one that makes middle-class folks feel good, while at the same time trampling the long-term opportunities of the voiceless. I'm not alone- my family members have a long history of doing exactly this. I went on the record as opposed to a policy that is strongly supported not only by my administrators and supervisors, but also by most of the faculty around me. I wish I could say I felt brave and confident as hung up the phone with the reporter. I didn’t-- in fact, I ran to the bathroom and lost my lunch.

Over the course of the past many months, I’ve received a lot of advice about the Madison Initiative. Advisers have patiently explained to me that the policy is going forward with or without me, and that my time and energy spent fighting will be wasted. I’d be better off simply recommending a few minor alterations and falling in line; at the bare minimum this would help to ensure I could devote my energies to peer-reviewed publications and the kinds of thing academia typically rewards. A fight like this one, I was told, was something I had to earn the right to participate in—something I needed tenure for.

This is all undoubtedly true. The numbers of hours I’ve spent agonizing over the Initiative, pouring over its details, listening to the administration, reading what students have to say, reviewing relevant research on the topic again and again—it’s taken plenty of time and left room for very little sleep. If I were more prudent, that time could have been spent on my many R&Rs, helping put the icing on my tenure case.

Except until now, I really wasn’t sure what tenure was good for. I never set out to be a professor—I just wanted to question conventional wisdom and address it with the best available social science evidence. I'd do it in whatever setting allowed it. I never worried about unemployment; heck at times I find myself with 3 or even 4 jobs at a time. I am insanely fortunate, I know it, and so I thought how could I expect more? Tenure, I began to think, could be phased out in favor of more competitive salaries.

But today, I get it. At the end of my 5th year as an assistant professor, I just spoke out in a manner that could hurt my job prospects, possibly my research agenda, and who knows what else. I’m not saying anyone will directly throw the hammer at me- not at all. But people will be pissed, and they’ll find ways to make my life difficult. I recognize that.

So why bother? Why not wait until I had tenure- and true academic freedom? Because I’m not a professor just anywhere—this is Madison. Madison, for pete’s sake—the place where every academic in the country believes anyone can and does speak their mind, and is praised for it. I am deeply proud of this University’s tradition, and I want it upheld.

And in this case, the truth simply couldn’t wait. In my reading, the research here is unequivocal. I’ve got mountains of evidence that truly open discussions were not occurring, and could not under institutional constraints. I spend my days with students who have struggled to gain access to UW-Madison, and also with many of those who’d hope to attend but for major financial barriers. Yes, this policy increases financial aid—and that is a wonderful thing. But there were other routes to achieve the same end, and much better policy designs that were never considered or outright rejected. And so it was time to stand up for my students—and even more importantly for the Wisconsin high school graduates from poor families who will never find their way here. My own personal interests (e.g. salary, community of faculty, even tenure) be damned.

I have a two-year-old. When I leave the house every day I think about why I’m bothering. Today, the world knows why. And honestly, I’m both proud—and scared.

You have read this article Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / media / professor / tenure / UW-Madison with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-finally-figured-out-why-i-want-tenure.html. Thanks!

Update: Madison Initiative for Undergraduates

Todd Finkelmeyer at The Capital Times offers this update ("UW-Madison chancellor's proposed tuition hike elicits little pushback") on the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates.

At first glance, a key premise of Chancellor Biddy Martin's undergraduate initiative seems absurd. In an effort to make the University of Wisconsin-Madison "affordable to all," she is proposing a tuition increase.

Yet Martin's Madison Initiative for Undergraduates -- the first major proposal of her eight-month-old tenure -- has met with little organized resistance from students, who, in the past, have howled at any attempt to raise the cost of a college education.

"There is a lack of critical thought and a lack of sifting and winnowing, and I'm not sure why," says Noel Radomski, director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, a higher ed think tank based on campus. "Perhaps it's just a reflection, quite frankly, of the lack of true involvement by faculty, staff and students on significant issues on the Madison campus."

The UW System Board of Regents will vote on the proposal at its meeting later this week.

For background on the Madison Initiative from the Education Optimists, click here.

You have read this article Carolyn "Biddy" Martin / college / high tuition high aid / Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / tuition / University of Wisconsin / UW-Madison with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/05/update-madison-initiative-for.html. Thanks!

Why I Voted Against the Madison Initiative, by Guest Blogger Dakota Kaiser

Today we feature a post from an undergraduate student at UW-Madison, Dakota Kaiser. Dakota is a rising senior, and recently distinguished himself as the sole member of the ASM (Associated Students of Madison) to vote against the Chancellor's Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. While many if not all students and faculty can find something to like in the proposal, Dakota has taken a stand for reasons that only he can best articulate. Therefore, today he becomes the first-ever guest blogger on the Education Optimists, here to share his views. Welcome, Dakota!

Why did I vote no? First and foremost, as a student representative on ASM, I could not ethically endorse a tuition increase. As a representative from a rural working class background and a transfer student, I don’t believe my constituency supports this proposal. Higher education is on a path to pricing students out of college every year, and I don’t want Wisconsin to follow the trend. The largest piece of evidence provided for this money is the classic bar graph of funding and financial aid for the big 10. I don’t believe pointing to other schools with high tuition and wanting to fit in is a real argument. Pointing to others actions to justify your own didn’t work on the playground as kids, and it shouldn’t work now. We should take pride in our affordability not be embarrassed and quick to change it. I also question whether or not the BIG 10 is really our peer group. When the average Wisconsin high-school student looks at college choices, it's not between UW-Madison and Penn State, it’s between UW-Madison and other UW schools and community colleges.

While this proposal argues that it will increase economic diversity on campus, I believe it will do just the opposite. Low income, first generation, and other students from disadvantaged communities are likely to suffer from sticker shock when seeing the high tuition on a website, pamphlet or other promotional material. Those students who most need the financial aid that this program is designed to create are those students who will not take it into account when making their post-secondary choices. While the administration just released their report (by no coincidence I’m sure) stating that family income has no impact on acceptance to UW-Madsion, I believe that it does affect who is applying in the first place.

Tuition is the last place a public institution should look to solve its problems, not the first. If the administration has spent a serious amount of time trying other methods to fill the gap and accomplish these same goals and then finally had to turn to tuition, this may be a different story. I also believe that many of the goals and proposals in the initiative can be solved with out such a large increase in funds. More funding doesn’t mean better advising, counseling, or instruction. We have no evidence suggesting that these areas are actually damaged, or that more funding will fix them. All we have are some anecdotal accounts, not solid data. Students were rushed to make a decision on this as it was rolled out, followed by only 6 weeks of an all out marketing, and lobbying blitz, with little time to let these ideas actually settle.

We also have been shown no evidence that changes in the area’s proposed will actually provide a better education, and there are no accountability measures or goals to judge success by. When I asked an administrator about how they will judge success in four years, I was told that they will have more faculty members, more advisers, and more services. When I responded that those are all means to the end of a better education, and asked how they would know that those things are actually making a difference, they had no answer.

In the end I believe that this proposal will not produce the intended results, and may harm our institution. In my opinion the average student doesn’t support this initiative, but they have been given no outlet to speak against it. In the one survey produced by ASM less than 20% of students supported the initiative, while over 80% were neutral or opposed. While the rest of student council was able to ignore that fact, and argue that the educated students were in favor of it and that as time goes on more will be too, I could not.

You have read this article college / financial aid / higher education / Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / tuition / University of Wisconsin / UW-Madison with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-i-voted-against-madison-initiative.html. Thanks!

What is the Evidence on High-Tuition High-Aid Models?

Inquiring minds want to know... and those of us optimistic about the future of education in this country, and the future of our children, are here to provide that service.

Given declining state support to higher education, it's not at all surprising that even the most "public" state flagship universities are considering high-tuition high-aid models-- ones that jack up tuition on all or a subset of students in order to provide more aid to students from lower-income backgrounds. Sounds good, right? Those who can will pay more, and those who can't will get more aid.

As with any policy, especially one so appealing on the face of it, it's worth turning to any available empirical evidence to assess whether it should be enacted. So let's do it.

1. University of Michigan- Ann Arbor began using this model back in 1997. UM is known as the most truly affordable college in the Big 10 by virtue of its gobs and gobs of financial aid. So, is it working? "In 2008, UM reported that tuition has increased 27 percent for incoming freshmen in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts since fall 2004. Tuition cost $10,447... University officials said they've increased financial aid by a greater percentage than the annual tuition increases." But since 1997, the number of low-income UM students has decreased by 10%, while the number of wealthy students has increased by 8%. What's going on? According to the financial aid director at UM “Our cost scares people away… it’s hard for [prospective students] to reconcile that, yes, we may be more expensive, but we give more financial aid."

2. Miami University of Ohio. With a president who understood that unfortunately "high tuition makes people think a school has a lot to offer" this institution raised in-state rates to match out-of-state ones, but also offered automatic grants up to nearly $13,000 to in-staters to offset the cost. The prez promised that net costs for Ohioans wouldn't go up-- that for them costs would remain the same. A year later, applications and enrollment immediately went up. Sounds great, right!? Except over the course of that same year there was an 8 percent decrease in applications from students with high amounts of financial need, and in-state enrollment dropped 13%.

These problems are recognized by the student body at the University of Washington, where a similar model is being considered. See here for an example.

3. Two important facts from financial aid research:

A. Low SES students are particularly price sensitive and have difficulty identifying the amount of aid they can expect to receive (hey, with a FAFSA like that who's surprised?). (See the work of Don Heller). We've never found a successful way to get low-income families accurate info on net cost, so as to influence their choices, early on, before they count themselves out of higher ed.

B. "A $1,000 increase in tuition decreases the attendance rate of low income youth by an estimated 5.2 percentage points more than middle- and high-income youth." (Thomas Kane) If the aid did not match the increases in tuition dollar-for-dollar, not only in theory but in reality, what follows is pretty clear.

Moreover, many of the biggest names in financial aid research and leaders of great public institutions tend to agree. Here are the voices of a few:

Edward St. John (U. Michigan): "The reality of high‐tuition/high‐aid [does] not match the vision advocated by progressives. Institutions leverage student aid to generate tuition revenue, replace tax dollars but adding to inequalities created by the shift in public finance. While rising tuition is a fact of life in public universities, student aid remains ambiguous and uncertain."

University of California System: In 2006, UC declined to go high-tuition/high-aid to protect access for low-income and minority students. UC reviewed the relevant research in advance, and its report declared: "Practically speaking, return-to-aid does not always compensate for the effect of tuition increases. In spite of efforts to increase financial aid in keeping with increase in tuition, high-tuition universities generally do not have student bodies as diverse as their less expensive public cousins....Thus in spite of the University’s excellent intentions and unusual efforts to offset the negative effects of fee hikes, the Compact moves the University toward a high tuition-high aid model that may not be able to prevent reduced access."

Brian Levin-Stankevich, President of Eastern-Washington University: He declined to go high-tuition, high-aid, noting that "the sticker price alone can be a deterrent to even considering college." But, he found an alternative, raising class size and using more technology. (Point of fact: there is no good evidence that smaller undergraduate classes are cost-effective, producing better outcomes worth the price. That said, they are politically popular!)

Patrick Callan: The Miami model, according to Callan, was a “poor execution of a poor idea.” “Everyone thought that high tuition, high aid programs worked well until we heard from privates about their issues with access for low-income students,” said Callan. “It would be a serious mistake for schools to look at the Miami situation and conclude that this is the best way to help low-income students.”

Bruce Johnstone notes that actually translating high tuition into high aid is operationally complex and hard to implement. It would also be hard to know if a university wasn't actually spending the money in that way. Other research, by Griswold and Marine supports this -- tuition pricing and aid allocations are often poorly coordinated.

And just for balance here are the voices of advocates of high-tuition/high-aid models...

James Garland, Miami University of Ohio. “Imagine if there were, in its place, a food subsidy program by which the government paid that $27 billion directly to supermarkets. Under such a program needy families would benefit little, because most of the savings would be passed on to customers who didn't need help. That would be an inefficient use of public money. But this is precisely what happens in public higher education. When states pay their universities to hold down tuition charges, they are indirectly subsidizing wealthy and poor students alike."

Ron Ehrenberg of Cornell University. A recent article about the Madison Initiative quoted Ehrenberg as saying "it’s to be expected that flagship institutions will have to borrow from the private model to maintain quality in an environment of diminishing resources. That said, there are potential pitfalls. “This [increase] is actually going to hit a relatively large fraction of the students, and the downside risk is that there may turn out to be a lot of political opposition to it,” said Ehrenberg, a professor of economics. “There’s always sort of the fear that if you raise tuition you’re going to lose public support, and that’s going to make state appropriations go away even faster,” he added."


Research by Jim Hearn and others has shown that time and again this model becomes popular under conditions of financial stress. But stressful times are times to get creative, to think harder about efficiencies, and to take unpopular stands. They are not the time to leave the poorest citizens among us out in the cold, while we "save" our own children, and our own behinds.

Postscript: I give tons of credit to the Economic Opportunity Institute for a very good brief on the topic.

You have read this article college / financial aid / high tuition high aid / low-income / Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / students / University of Wisconsin-Madison / UW-Madison with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-is-evidence-on-high-tuition-high.html. Thanks!

UPDATE: Madison Initiative (redux)

Students and families are continuing to weigh in. Here's the latest from Madison-land...

In "Tuition increase simply robbery" James Farrell (class of 1988) writes: "...The proposed tuition surcharge would be better named ...“Martin’s Increase in Undergraduate Debt.” As a parent of a non-resident student, and as a UW alumnus, let me comment on the chancellor’s talent for doublespeak.... although I have been a regular donor to the University since the year of my graduation, I will for the next decade or more consider Chancellor Martin’s “surcharge” as my contribution to the annual fund."

In response to "Taking the Initiative," a generally positive Badger Herald editorial, several students write anonymously:

"According to this, the majority of students will be affected by this tuition hike to bring more faculty and enhance the undergraduate experience. The reality of it is the people hired with this money will do minimal teaching, optimal research, and then the undergrads are out $2500 each year for something that really doesn't affect them. No thanks."

"Maybe you come from a rich family, but many of us don't. Even for families making just over $80,000, this initiative is going to be difficult to pay. Stop judging other people's problems. You just make yourself sound like a spoiled little rich kid. You're probably one of those people who own like 20 pairs of Ugg boots and Northfaces. Honestly, I have no idea who would want to pay over $30,000 to come here from out of state. That's a significant increase and unfair to people who came here thinking tuition would remain significantly less. I would never go to a public university in another state for $32,000 a year!"

You have read this article Carolyn "Biddy" Martin / college / Madison Initiative for Undergraduates / tuition / University of Wisconsin-Madison / UW-Madison with the title Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/03/update-madison-initiative-redux.html. Thanks!