September 25, 2006
Back to School Report 2006
The United States spends 15% of its public monies on education. Yet more of its gross domestic product is spent on providing and consuming private education. It is, in all, a tidy sum. The overall results, though, are not very consoling. A new report issued this week by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and funded by the Ford Foundation, Pew Trusts, and Atlantic Philanthropies shows that educational progress is stagnating. Here are some of their findings: The report concludes that the United States no longer leads the world in access to and attainment in higher education. The nation’s overall performance, in a word, is average. Why? Clearly poor primary and secondary education is a cause. As the report notes, a big chunk of young U.S. adults is effectively eliminated because they drop out of high school or have inadequate skills. Given that many other countries have higher high school and college graduation rates, American youth are not hitting some God-given limits on their educational potential, but are rather under-achieving for reasons of local circumstance. What are they? Financial need, for one. Another report, this time issued jointly by the Congress and the U.S. Education Department this past Friday, September 22, reports that between 1.4 million and 2.4 million young adults will not earn college degrees in the next decade for lack of funds. These young adults, qualified by the study as academically prepared for college, come almost exclusively from low-income families. Doing a little seat of the pants math, if they went to college, they would increase their generation’s college participation by between 10% and 15%. Income differences really count. Richard Kahlenberg in the March 10, 2006 issue of Chronicle of Higher Education reports research showing that 1 in 2 students from families making $90,000 a year or more went to college, while only 1 in 17 students from families making $35,000 or less went to school. As low income in the U.S. is often related to race, many of these potential students are no doubt African-American and Latino. The gap between minority student and white student attendance in four-year colleges suggests this is likely. Consider that 2001 U.S. Education numbers reveal that 37% of eligible white students attend college, in contrast to 26% of African-American and 15% of Latino students. As bad as the figures are for white students, minority students trail much further behind. Something is going wrong at the colleges too. The proportion of four-year college students who graduate within five years of entry has slid from 55% in 1988 to 51% in 2001. Private schools are holding up this rather dismal percentage, for the graduation rate in public colleges and universities is much worse and has declined noticeably more. In 1988, 48% of public students graduated within 5 years; in 2001, the figure had slipped to 42%. These figures were reported by the American College Testing Service in 2002. Colleges are expensive, and their costs have risen relentlessly since the seventies, as I reported in "Forget the Pigskin and Follow the Money," an earlier column here at 3QD. It now costs $11,000 a year for tuition, room, and board at public colleges, and over $25,000 a year at private schools. To be sure, colleges, universities, the federal government, and banks, provide scholarships and loans in apparent abundance. But resources are being out-run by rising costs and student inability to pay the rest of a very large bill. Federal Pell grants that provide actual money instead of loans for students coming from low and moderate income families, cover about 15% of the annual student bill, down from 40% in earlier years. As colleges have ginned up their little competitiveness race, they have diverted more of their resources into so-called "merit" scholarships. They now put over $7 billion into winning students away from other competitors, up five-fold between 1994 and 2004. Schools still award an enormity of aid based upon financial need – some $39 billion in 2004. Once more, however, Kahlenberg in the Chronicle notes that a Congressional advisory committee estimates that when expenses are balanced against the total financial aid package, a low-income student still faces an annual $3,800 shortfall that must be made up by her efforts or by those of her family. When family income is below $35,000, that can be just enough to discourage college entry. The final economic clincher is that even as education costs rise, incomes for 2/3 of American workers have not grown since 1973. Here then, in higher education, is another place where the fundamental deficiencies of American economic life are being felt. There is no gainsaying that the income advantage for the possessors of a college degree continue to grow. The Census Bureau reports that national median earnings for college degree holders was $44,000. College degree holders now make 72% more than persons with high school degrees, up from 68% in 1997. Certainly it pays to go to college, if you can pay for it. This year’s report card shows that: Let’s learn from these tough lessons.
Posted by Michael Blim at 01:42 PM | Permalink






















Comments
"Colleges need to sort out why their costs run along faster than inflation, and have so for a good quarter century. Could institution-building and "competitiveness" have something to do with it?"--what the heck does that mean? in 25 years, these folks have not been aboew to "sort out" why they are charging more and more? For openers, check the rise in salaries and benefits for college presidents. That might begin to Sort out. How will the very folks raising tuitition each year be expected to "sort out" why they are doing this?
Posted by: fred lapides | Sep 25, 2006 2:32:11 PM
"More resources must be devoted to student aid, and without exception, to those who by virtue of their family income are most in financial need."
As is, I strongly disagree. We need to give aid to kids who are actually deserving. We keep investing in kids who aren't trying. Kids aren't deserving just because they're poor, or because they meet a certain ethnic profile. They're deserving because they work their asses off, don't cheat, pay attention in class, and in general stay out of trouble.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend | Oct 30, 2006 11:37:26 AM
Dear Fiend: Note that the estimate for up to 2.4 million young people not in college is not because they are unqualified -- emphatically they are -- but because they cannot afford it.
Spare me on the ethnic profile stuff. Pay atttention to how the poor and working poor need help, regardless of their color.
Posted by: michael blim | Oct 30, 2006 7:25:48 PM
Dear Michael,
"emphatically they are"
I'm not sure that's true. Maybe you are, but I'm not.
I spend a lot of time tutoring the kids of the poor and working poor. Many of them are trying hard to do the right thing by their kids. Many, many more are not.
I think any deserving kid should be able to attend college. I think I've already mentioned what I consider "deserving," but in case it isn't clear, I don't think someone deserves their college payed for just because they exist, or exhibit any coincidental attributes unrelated to their actual demonstrated willingness to apply themselves. Any aid should be tied to some kind of performance metric, no matter how imperfect.
You said in your original post, "Certainly it pays to go to college, if you can pay for it."
I agree, but the payoff applies to those who can actually make it through college, meaning we should be putting effort into making sure kids are ready to succeed once they arrive.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend | Oct 31, 2006 11:22:43 AM
"Any aid should be tied to some kind of performance metric, no matter how imperfect."
Dear Fiend:
Oddly enough, none of the Ivies grant merit-based scholarships; they're all need-based. The reason for this, as I understand it, is that merit-based aid tends to reward those who are already well-off, and who have enjoyed a plethora of advantages in tutoring, the best private schools, paid-for extracurricular activities, etc. If we are truly interested in making sure that poor yet hard-working kids get to go to college, it seems that need-based scholarships are the way to go.
But perhaps there is a way to structure merit-based scholarships so that they measure how far you have come compared to your immediate peers - for example, scholarships for kids who graduated in the top nth% of their high school class. This would take into account the varying demographics and qualities of schools in a way that nationwide measures, such as SAT scores, do not.
Posted by: Sophia | Oct 31, 2006 12:06:28 PM
Dear Fiend: Check out the report I cited from USDE and the Congress. Of course it could have been loaded with university people wanting to increase demand for their product, but I have no reason to believe this, as the report has not come under any attack.
Dear Sophia: Are you sure the Ivy League schools do not give merit scholarships? Even if true, please not the big increase in merit-based as opposed to need-based scholarship on a national basis.
Posted by: michael blim | Oct 31, 2006 1:14:52 PM
Dear Michael: I'll check out the peport.
Dear Sophia: I've heard that the Ivies do not grant merit. I've just assumed it was true, though I never check it out.
Just because a kid is from a poor family is no excuse to allow him to get a scholarship if he has bad grades. I don't think I'd demand a top n%, but something like "nothing less than a 2.6 GPA," for example or 2.8 or whatever is appropriate and maybe 500's on SAT (or corresponding ACT). OTOH, I've heard the ivies don't accept SAT any more, but then not every kid is owed an ivy league education (including my own). I'm not trying to filter people out who ARE really interested - where interest is measured by more than "yea, i'm interested in 4 more years of adolescence."
Some kids whose parents are well off are able to succeed because their parents can afford tutors, or $10K summer college camps, or whatever. That isn't the reason they all succeed. At the other extreme not all of us from poor families necessarily do badly just because our parents don't support us. Those of us who want it badly enough find a way.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend | Oct 31, 2006 10:39:22 PM
Post a comment