Making the Pell Grant Memorable

In a new policy brief just released by the Scholars Strategy Network at Harvard University, I make the case that the emotional meanings of financial aid can and should be enhanced to promote student success.  Sociologists and psychologists have long known that money has social value and that this can be increased through social connections.  The creators of the GI Bill understood this and took advantage of it by ensuring all recipients understood where funding for that program came from and what it meant. The same must now be done for the federal Pell Grant.  In fact, it could be done for all grant programs.  Governors, mayors, legislators, and yes, presidents, should get involved in conveying a strong, supportive message to the millions of needy yet promising students struggling every day to make it through college.

PS. Just got the following response on Twitter.

@saragoldrickrab TRUTH. as #Pell Recipient, I had no idea why I received 3K for my education.. just thankful w. no one to thank
— Dan S. (@destatter) August 7, 2012

You have read this article college completion / college success / GI Bill / meaning / Pell Grant with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2012/08/making-pell-grant-memorable.html. Thanks!

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 college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2011/03/increasing-pell-what-does-it-tell-us.html. Thanks!

First, Do Your Homework

There's growing concern with higher education's affordability problem, as well there should be. It's hard to see how college will promote social mobility if a kid's ability to access it is increasingly linked to whether or not his family has money.

So it's heartening to see college leaders attempting to provide solutions. But it'd be even better if we first saw them earnestly attempting to understand where the real sources of trouble lie. I'm afraid that step's being skipped a bit too often, running the risk of making things worse.

Here's a recent example. At this month's Regents Board Meeting, University of Wisconsin System President Kevin Reilly was explicitly asked to name some solutions to promoting affordability at his institutions. There were many ways he could respond. To his credit, Reilly acknowledged the importance of growing the state's paltry support for need-based aid and he said that multiple solutions were needed--there's no one silver bullet. Fair enough. But then he took a bit of a flying leap, saying we also needed an informational campaign aimed at helping students and families understand that it's best to finish college in four years.

Huh? This one left me scratching my head.

More specifically, Reilly said that his administration needs to do a better job communicating with students and families about their educational "choices" and the financial implications of those choices. He suggested that students and families do not know that finishing in four saves money, and if they did, they'd make "better" decisons.

Based on what, exactly?

Was Reilly in possession of some new empirical evidence indicating that Wisconsin families don't perceive the returns to a college degree, or one earned on time? Had he or his staff done homework that showed students were taking longer to finish because they lacked a "focus on 4?" I wish this was the case, but I doubt it. The only data Reilly has publicly provided for his argument is this: he compared the completion rates of in-state students to out-of-state students and noted that the latter group pays more tuition and finishes degrees faster. Given the numerous differences between the two groups, this is an especially weak argument, and one that a decent analysis of the data could easily tear apart.

On the other hand, we have a new national report from the Gates Foundation about the most common reason for college dropout: students' overwhelming need to work. There's also a rigorous study from the National Bureau of Economic Research showing that declining resources for higher education (e.g. supply-side factors) contribute more to college completion rates than do student-side factors. In an earlier paper, the same authors pointed to how the overcrowding of non-top 50 public institutions (a category into which nearly all of Reilly's institutions fit) leads to increased time-to-degree. And within Wisconsin I am co-leading a team of researchers investigating precisely how and why affordability matters for college success. None of that work provides support for the idea that students don't know that finishing a degree faster will save them money. Instead, they have a hard time figuring out how to make that happen while juggling work, family, and school.

Of course, Reilly isn't alone in thinking that he needs to share this "money-saving advice" with students and families. The problem is that his assumption and his message aren't benign. In particular, both come across as out-of-touch and insensitive to the harsh realities of some students' lives. Just think about his words on the subject, which include these quotes: "You've got to realize how much more you're going to be paying unless you focus." "...Part of the problem clearly is students choosing to say, 'I don't want to take an 8 a.m. course' or 'I want to take my courses between 10 (a.m.) and 3 (p.m.) on Tuesday and Thursday.,," "We need to be clearer about results of choices that students and families make about college...There are ways that students and families, by planning ahead a bit and making some focused intentional choices, can hold the cost of an education down."

The assumption he's making-- that the choices made by low-income families are not "intentional" or even informed--rests on shaky, volatile ground. As I've argued elsewhere, the common sport of painting working-class students and families as irrational is off-base. In fact, taken in the context of significant constraints on their lives the decisions many students make about extending their time to degree are quite rational. As a former UW undergraduate told me, ‘It's not an issue of choosing to work when classes are available, but often an issue of you don't get to choose your schedule, especially as the number of hours you work increases."

I have a feeling that when making his suggestion, Reilly was referencing those picky students who want to sleep late and be choosy about their courses, a common rep given to the Madison undergrads (for example). The problem is, those aren't the same students not completing degrees in 4 years. In essence, he's drawing on impressions of an elite group of students to shape solutions to the problems of the non-elite. Not gonna work.

In the absence of any empirical support, one has to wonder-- why does this idea have any traction at all? I think its because it fits with American ideals-those who work the hardest and "focus" the most will get ahead. It places the blame squarely on individuals rather than institutions, even when purporting to share responsibility. Constraints be damned; if you "know" what's good for you, you'll do it. Plus, communicating to students what's good for them is far less expensive than providing the financial support they need to make their actual choices pay off.

Crafting solutions to policy problems without doing sufficient homework first can incur trouble. For one, you risk insulting and alienating the very folks you wanted to help. That's certainly what happened here. As the former UW student told me, "Very few people are oblivious to the fact that adding an extra year to your education costs more money... I'm disappointed that the UW-System seems absolutely unaware of the challenges faced by its students, and its president believes that it's due to personal choice or ignorance that a student would not graduate in four years...The system misunderstands the plight of students who have similar circumstances to the ones I experienced."

You have read this article affordability / college completion / college degree / higher education / Kevin Reilly / UW System / UW-Madison / Wisconsin with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/12/first-do-your-homework.html. Thanks!

College Completion Rates: Up, Down, and Sideways

I love a good controversy about an important higher education topic. What better way to enjoy a Wisconsin snowstorm than to sit cozily inside, trading emails with knowledgeable folks who are trying to sort out why it appears college completion rates have declined in the U.S. over the last 30 or 40 years. I'm hard-pressed to think of one (well, maybe, after a long day of work having this 38-week fetus out of me would be nice). So, thanks to Sarah Turner, John Bound, and Michael Lovenheim for giving us such a nice meaty analysis to chew over this week.

There's already been a good bit written about and commented on this report, particularly by Cliff Adelman, the man who gave the world America's longitudinal transcript data and a robust series of reports on what they tell us about colleges and students. The fact that so many people find so many different messages in the analysis actually bodes well for the paper--it's partly a story about trends in completion rates (are they really down, or just stagnant?), partly a story about potential reasons for declines in rates (is it all about inadequate student preparation?), partly about differences among 4-year institutions (e.g. public flagships vs. other nonselectives), and partly about community colleges (are they "doing harm?" Why don't their outcomes seem affected by resources? etc).

As a sociologist, I see questions about inequality pervading all of these issues, and nothing tickles me more than to see economists writing about stratification. If completion rates really declined in the face of efforts to expand overall participation, we can anticipate political pushback against advocates for greater efforts to enhance access-- regardless of the reasons for the decline. If the reasons for decline (or stagnation) have anything to do with compositional changes on either the supply or the demand side (and the answer really is "both") then that's a story about inequality too, since those changes accompanied expansion. And any story about differences among institutions or effects of institutions is really about the functions or unintended consequences of institutional differentiation itself, a key facet of our higher education "opportunity" structure.

All that said, here's what I think we should take away from this paper:

1. It's nearly impossible to expand participation in any program without affecting the outcomes of that program. For too long some people have talked about changes in access and completion in U.S. higher education without sufficiently acknowledging that compositional shifts in who attends college will (almost without a doubt) affect graduation rates. Let's hope this paper gets the basic discussion back on the right track.

2. That said, changes in composition of the student population did not occur in a vacuum. As the student body changed, so did many of our policies and practices. More states came to rely more heavily on the community colleges to serve those deemed "unsuitable" for 4-year institutions (see Brint and Karabel, and Dougherty for more). With increased institutional differentiation came a greater need for states to choose how to distribute scarce resources, and evidence suggests that oftentimes a decision was made to give less money to sectors serving needier students (e.g. public 4-year nonselective and 2-year colleges). That didn't go unnoticed by students and families themselves, whose perceptions of resources and status affect their college choices (see Cellini for a recent paper demonstrating this). Furthermore, other policies changed at the same time--including federal financial aid--in ways that promoted shifts to less-expensive colleges.

3. As a nation we relied on community colleges to absorb much of the growth in enrollment. To what end? While some will read this paper and decide that community colleges have screwed up, that's a flat-wrong and oversimplified conclusion. It's also not one intended by the authors. As table 4 in the paper shows, we treat community college students like they are cheap to educate. Median per-student expenditures during the 1990s were just $2,610 at community colleges, having declined 14% since the 1970s. In comparison, spending at public 4-year "non-top 50" colleges was 52% higher. What's the expression I'm looking for here? Oh yes, "crap in, crap out." (Hold on-- I will clarify-- I am not saying community college students are crappy or that all community college outcomes are crappy!) We pushed lots of students in the door, gave the colleges little money, and were surprised that when faced with paltry resources, crowding, and a growing abundance of missions things didn't go so well? Shame on us. Take a look at CUNY's faculty, students, and classrooms a few decades after the 1970s open-admissions experiment there and you'll see the relationship I'm describing. You simply cannot install a massive policy change without proper supports, no matter how good the intentions are.

But let's be honest--the paper doesn't demonstrate a strong relationship between resources and outcomes, in the community college sector or elsewhere. In fact, it indicates a weaker relationship in that sector compared to others. But as the authors have acknowledged (in personal correspondence), endogenous state behavior would bias them against finding a larger effect, and measurement of resource effects is perhaps more problematic in the 2-year sector, for many reasons including how and under what conditions (e.g. governance) resources are allocated, costs may be greater, and there is overall less variation in resources. So, this paper isn't the greatest test of whether money matters for college completion (not that a good direct test exists). It is, however, pretty good at showing that fixing k-12 isn't going to be a sufficient solution to the completion problem.

I will be the first to admit that the paper doesn't provide sufficient evidence to support all of the relationships I've laid out here-- and therefore many remain partially-tested hypotheses. Mostly, the authors didn't test them because of methodological challenges that could be hard to overcome since changes in student characteristics, sectoral enrollments, and resources are highly interrelated and operating bi-directionally. If that's true, teasing out what matters most using the logistic regressions employed in this paper becomes much more problematic. I've also got to note that given the methods used here, it's also not appropriate to use the findings as evidence that one sector is outperforming another.

So in the end, here's the punchline: if we want graduation rates to improve, we need to pay attention more attention to how we structure college opportunities. This is a multi-sided process, with states, colleges, parents, and students all making decisions, and often in an information-poor, resource-deficient environment. No single approach (e.g. high school preparation, financial aid, college accountability, etc) targeting a single group is going to work.

You have read this article college completion / college preparation / community colleges / John Bound / Michael Lovenheim / Sarah Turner with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/12/college-completion-rates-up-down-and.html. Thanks!

The So-Called Boy Mystery

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently announced that it would investigate whether some colleges are discriminating against women in an effort to generate a more gender-diverse student population. Reaction was mixed, with some saying it's about time that the "crisis with boys" in higher education is acknowledged and addressed, and others expressing some disbelief and ridicule that the gender wars have come to this.

But part of the overall response really stuck in my craw--the oft-repeated claim that we "just don't know" what's going on with boys. According to many, sources for the gender differential in higher education are a complete "mystery," a puzzle, a whodunit that we may be intentionally ignoring.

Yes, there are numerous potential explanations for the under-representation of men in higher education--and in particular the growing female advantage in terms of bachelor's degree completion. For example, it could be that boys and girls have differing amounts of the resources important for college success (e.g. levels of financial resources or parental education) or that the usual incentives for college-going (e.g. labor market returns) have differential effects by gender (why, laments the Wall Street Journal, don't boys "get" the importance of attending college?). It's also possible that changes in the labor force or marriage markets, gender discrimination, or societal expectations play a role--or that the reasons have to do with the growth of community colleges, changes in college affordability, or shifts in the available alternatives to college (e.g. the military).

Sure, this is a wide range of potential factors, not easy to untangle. But while a few years ago we really hadn't a clue about what mattered or why (partly because the trendlines were just becoming visible) this simply isn't true now. This is a topic getting plenty of attention in the research community, there's a reasonable amount of solid data for analysts to use to tackle the major questions, and researchers are on it. Just as one example, I recently reviewed conference proposals for higher education sessions at a national academic meeting, and more than half of the approximately 50 I reviewed were focused on the gender in higher education question.

I've learned the most in the past couple of years from a series of studies conducted by Claudia Buchmann and Thomas DiPrete. Buchmann and DiPrete are well-known for their very rigorous approach to hypothesis testing, and thorough (though often complex) approach to investigation. Their findings on this topic have been published in the top sociology and demography journals--places, admittedly, media commentators are unlikely to find them. So, to help shape a more informed debate on this topic, here are two key Buchmann & DiPrete findings which deserve a wider audience.

1. The growing female advantage in BA completion is much more about college success than it is about college access. While it is the case that there have been changes in college participation (with women's participation growing more rapidly), the gender gap in BA attainment mostly stems from gender differences (among 4-year college goers) in who completes degrees. This suggests that whether or not boys "get" that they need to go to college has little relevance.

2. Women experience greater college success because they are academically better-prepared to do so. Boys and girls score similarly on standardized tests, but girls excel in terms of course grades--and these grades are highly correlated with college outcomes. In fact, the gender gap in college completion is well-predicted by middle school grades. Moreover, girls exhibit greater effort (e.g. on homework) and other important non-cognitive characteristics.

So the gender differences we now see in higher education are largely reflective of already-observed differences in k-12. Buchmann and DiPrete have tested for other explanations, including those described above, and they just don't hold much water. The empirical story is thus pretty simple--now that the (mostly cultural) barriers to college entry for women have fallen away, we shouldn't be surprised to see the issues we already know exist in k-12 having impacts on college outcomes.

Now, the search for explanations as to why there are gender differences in earlier schooling outcomes is the topic of a much more contested body of literature. Some argue that the problems lie in schools and that reforms (e.g. single sex schooling or the development of a more masculine culture in classrooms) should be targeted at schools. For their part, Buchmann and DiPrete think that the answers lie in some combination of school resources (the gender gap is smaller in highly-resourced schools), and a kind of culture re-orienting (driven by parental involvement) that can help more boys integrate attachment to schooling with the boy-culture desire to be emotionally detached. Girls exhibit stronger behavioral and social skills from the very start of kindergarten, and continue to exceed boys in the development of those skills throughout elementary school. Notably, the kinds of skills girls appear to have-more self-control, interpersonal skills, etc-are the target of certain kinds of preschools and parenting strategies.

In the end, does research tell us definitively whether the appropriate policy response to a gender gap in BA completion is affirmative action for boys? Of course not. It's pretty clear from these studies and others, including a new book from Thomas Espenshade and his colleagues, that any solution will need to address not only gender disparities but racial and class ones as well. The clearer implication of Buchmann and DiPrete's work is that policymakers concerned with the lower rates of college completion among men need to focus not so much on the actions of colleges and universities, but on k-12 education and pre-adolescent experiences in particular. This is a pipeline issue, and is has been for a long time--for decades girls have outperformed boys in most aspects of k-12 schooling (despite a chillier climate there), and as the barriers to entry into postsecondary education have fallen away, they have entered and performed better there as well. Buchmann and DiPrete argue that instead of targeting interventions at boys per se, reformers could instead target groups of students from similar social strata who are underperforming in school. In theory, at least, it should be possible to develop interventions that help all students, but incur particular advantages for boys.

To sum up: the gender advantage in higher education is not surprising and it's not a "mystery." In fact, there are some clear directions for intervention. So, instead of lamenting a "whodunit," let's get to work.

********

This particular post requires a long list of references rather than links, so here they are. Unpublished or forthcoming pieces (aside from the book) can be found on DiPrete's website.

T. DiPrete and C. Buchmann. Advantage Women: The Growing Gender Gap in College Completion and What it Means for American Education. Manuscript in preparation for the Russell Sage Foundation.

A. McDaniel, T. DiPrete, and C. Buchmann. (Forthcoming). The Black Gender Gap in Educational Attainment: Historical Trends and Racial Comparisons. Demography.

J. Jennings and T. DiPrete. (Forthcoming). Teacher Effects on Social/Behavioral Skills in Early Elementary School. Sociology of Education.

J. Legewie and T. DiPrete. (2009). Family Determinants of the Changing Gender Gap in Educational Attainment: A Comparison of the U.S. and Germany. Schmoeller's Jahrbuch.

C. Buchmann, T. DiPrete, and A. McDaniel. (2008). Gender Inequalities in Education. Annual Review of Sociology 34: 319-337.

T. DiPrete and C. Buchmann. (2006). Gender-Specific Trends in the Value of Education and the Emerging Gender Gap in College Completion. Demography 43 (1):1-24.

C. Buchmann and T. DiPrete. (2006). The Growing Female Advantage in College Completion: The Role of Parental Education, Family Structure, and Academic Achievement. American Sociological Review 71:515-541. (Note: This paper won a national award from the American Sociological Association's Section on Sociology of Education.)

J. Jennings and T. DiPrete. (No Date) "Social/Behavioral Skills and the Gender Gap in Early Educational Achievement." Working paper.

You have read this article Claudia Buchmann / college / college access / college completion / gender gap / Thomas DiPrete with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/12/the-so-called-boy-mystery.html. Thanks!

Where Have You Been?

A spate of recent articles, including those covering Bill Bowen and Mike McPherson's new book (which I promise to review just as soon as my copy arrives), have left me a bit perplexed-- wondering aloud "where have you all been?" The punchline each time is that a fair proportion of adults starting college are not finishing. Yes, and duh. This is not new, and if it's news well I guess it's only because we've deliberately kept our heads in the sand.

But there's no way that folks like New York Times reporter David Leonhardt have been deliberately oblivious, and yet he's writing about low college completion rates as if they've just been unearthed. In a recent blog post, Kevin Carey implied the same-- just as he did in a recent American Enterprise Institute report. But this has been a prominent topic of discussion for years--maybe a decade plus! Just look at Kevin's own 2004 report A Matter of Degrees (which received plenty of media coverage), or the Spellings Commission report, or Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz's book. I know I could go back several more years and find plenty more evidence.

I think it's one thing to imply something is new when it isn't (because again, maybe you just didn't know, or you feel the issue still is widely known enough and want to beat the drum more), and it's another thing entirely to claim that policymakers still aren't paying attention. In Leonhardt's case, he's simply wrong when he says the current Administration isn't focused on college completion. Um, how about that $2.5 billion Access and Completion Fund, part of Obama's original budget proposal? What about the performance (outcomes)-based components of the new community college monies contained in HR 3221? Foundations like Lumina and Gates have been beating this drum for years, and those in the Administration are well aware. No one in DC is saying institutions should continue to be judged solely based on enrollment (even enrollment of disadvantaged groups). There is plenty of ado about completion rates. The question is now, what exactly are the best solutions? That's a debate that needs to be richer and more visible, since the answers are far from clear-- and we'd be terribly wrong to simply resort to NCLB-style responses that remind me of my toddler: "Institutions bad. Do wrong. I punish you and you do better. Now." Let's direct our energies toward really identifying the sources of the problems, and developing a sense of how reforms can be most effective. When I get a chance to read the new Bowen and McPherson book, I'm hoping I come away with new ideas on how to do that.

You have read this article Barack Obama / college access / college completion / graduation rate / New York Times / President with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/09/where-have-you-been.html. Thanks!

The Gimme Gimme Game

Cross-posted from Brainstorm

The President's proposed Access and Completion Fund, as represented in HR 3221, is an ambitious effort to get states and institutions of higher education focused on a crucial goal: moving more students from the starting gate to the finish line. By encouraging an emphasis on the need to find constructive routes to degree completion that can be brought to scale, helping more students more quickly, the legislation aims to enact a meaningful shift -- from access alone to access leading to success.

Of course, there had to be someone or something standing in the way of these lofty ambitions. And unsurprisingly, it's the colleges and universities themselves. The four-year institutions in particular, as self-interested and self-serving as ever, have come forward via their powerful lobbying associations to demand that the Fund work not via states but instead funnel the money directly to them. Why? According to a recent Chronicle article, colleges believe such an approach would be more "efficient and effective."

Unlikely. First, to be more efficient the money would have to incur bigger impacts at lower costs. Spreading the total sum ($2.5 billion) among all public 4-year colleges and universities would make that extremely hard to achieve. Imagine the administrative hassles alone. Second, the chances of colleges and universities achieving the kinds of intended impacts without coordination by states are slim to none. The success of the Fund will depend, in part, on getting states to change business as usual, implementing new innovative practices systemwide, reducing waste, and effecting new incentives for institutions. It's hard to imagine autonomous institutions, focused largely on their bottom lines (and yes, even state institutions are guilty of this), making such efforts. Coordination will be key, and 4-year colleges and universities hardly every play nice together. Systematic change requires thinking beyond the needs of colleges, to focus on the needs of students-- states will likely have to force institutions into making this happen by requiring partnerships.

I'll note there are at least two more potential problems with the colleges' proposed solution. Data collection and evaluation are required as part of accepting Fund dollars, and will be nearly impossible to implement unless distribution of dollars (and evaluation efforts) are coordinated at the state level.

And finally, as the Chronicle makes clear, advocates for this change to direct distribution to the colleges stems in part from the desires of private institutions. According to the article, "Cynthia A. Littlefield, director of federal relations at the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, said private institutions are historically at a disadvantage when federal grant programs are distributed through state governments.

"We are the last group on the totem pole," she said. "There is data that shows that, especially during tough economic times, private institutions are limited in grant opportunities. States like to assist public institutions."

Ummm... duh. As it should be. Want more public assistance, state or federal? Become a public institution.

Sure, states might supplant rather than supplement existing state funds with this money. That would be lousy, but hard to avoid-- and it's a problem common to all federal dollars pouring into states right now. Requiring a match, preferably out of operational funds, may help. Clearly, skipping the states won't solve the problem-- colleges and universities will similarly use the dollars to supplant their institutional money.

So, here's to hoping that Congress--and Senator Kennedy's HELP committee in particular--remains focused on the bottom line. Despite the chorus of "gimme gimme" sung by the schools meant to help them, policymakers need to stick to the goal of helping students, not colleges. The two, sadly, are not one and the same.

You have read this article Barack Obama / college completion / higher education / President with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/08/the-gimme-gimme-game.html. Thanks!

The College Payoff

Cross-posted from Brainstorm...

One reason I was so excited to join Brainstorm was that it presented a chance to go toe-to-toe once in awhile with my colleague and friend, Kevin Carey. Over the years I’ve read Kevin’s work frequently, and often found myself respectfully disagreeing with him. What’s the best is that our points of disagreement are always worth arguing over—as we are both so clearly interested in seeing major changes when it comes to equity and educational attainment.

This past week presented an illustration. I wrote a critique of an American Enterprise Institute report Kevin co-authored, and he responded with a post taking on some of my points. Since I have plenty to say in turn, and since I think this is a discussion very much worth having, I want to continue the debate here.

My main point in the original post was that the AEI authors jumped to conclusions I don’t find particularly helpful. They want to do something about low graduation rates, but prematurely conclude the solutions lie in changing institutional practices. Kevin replied with “colleges make a difference” and who would want to argue otherwise?

Well, in some sense—me. To put a finer point on it, I argue they individually make a difference, but mainly on the margins and for uncomfortable reasons.

Here's the outline of what I'm thinking. First, I emphatically believe that there’s an economic payoff to years of college, and credentials in particular, and that most students learn at least something during the time they spend in college. I also buy the research of Jennie Brand & Yu Xie (and others) who find that students least likely to attend college are in fact most likely to benefit from attending. This is why I'm for greater equity in access and completion. Second, I definitely do not believe that the sources of observed differentials in student outcomes among colleges—things like levels of student engagement, graduation rates, and returns to the degree—are about institutional policies and practices of the kind Kevin's referring to. Why? Since at least to some degree, most of our colleges select kids for admission based on evidence that they will be engaged and “able to benefit” from the experience--and they do this in different ways and to differing degrees-- then variation in graduation rates is clearly going to result.

So that's why colleges themselves probably only matter on the margins. And here comes the "uncomfortable" part. We have to recognize that (like it or not) the primary functions of our colleges and universities are (1) facilitating the creation of social networks and (2) credentialing. We go to college to hang out with people who will later be our friends, spouses, colleagues, and Facebook buddies-- and these people will help us find jobs and make good connections throughout our lives. We also go so that future employers will find us more desirable-- whether or not they should.

Ultimately, I don’t think that detracts from the importance of higher education, and in particular from the goal of broadening access to higher education. It’s a gatekeeper, and more people need to get in. But it does—and should- detract from the sense that some colleges “do a better job” than others. What does that really mean when what they "do" is help you meet your socially advantaged counterparts and send smoke signals to employers? If that’s what you’re buying, and you understand that, ok. I don't think most people do.

Now back to Kevin’s points. Sure, some colleges have high dropout rates and that’s a shame. Part of the reason is that they’re enrolling students who—a decade or two ago—wouldn’t have attended college. Now, in a college for all culture, they go. Some get a degree- and in this sense, opening doors is serving them well. Others suffer enormous personal costs, financial investments and feelings of personal failure. These things are hard to measure, but are undoubtedly affecting the numbers we observe. We hardly pay attention to (or measure) important factors like individuals’ health and development, and yet we assume that any remaining variation in outcomes (e.g. engagement or graduation rates) not accounted for by observable factors can be credited to college practices—instead of attributing the variation to the vast array of important predictors of individual functioning that we just don’t measure. Why?

If we want to make better policies to increase attainment and close gaps we need to get a better handle on what the real problems are. What if the differences in graduation rates are explained by differences in how mentally and physically prepared students at different colleges are for postsecondary education? Right now, that doesn’t show up in the data. So Kevin says the remaining variation is in the colleges’ domain. Yet if, based on that, we direct policy interventions at the colleges when the real problem is health, we’ll fail to generate change. That’s simply not useful, and potentially a waste of money. Why wait for research? This is why. We need more numbers, and less conjecture.

You have read this article blog / Chronicle of Higher Education / college / college completion / dropout prevention / research with the title college completion. You can bookmark this page URL https://apt3e.blogspot.com/2009/06/the-college-payoff.html. Thanks!