It’s a well-known fact that a college education is becoming necessary for many jobs. Companies are listing bachelor’s degrees as requirements on vacancy announcements, automatically screening out anyone who doesn’t have the needed education. And as technology replaces the work of employees in certain traditionally unskilled labor positions, the number of opportunities for those with just a high school diploma only seems to shrink.
But going to college isn’t an automatic choice for many. In fact, what they are taught in high school about the college experience has a major impact on a student’s decision. So, what should we be teaching minority high school students about college? Here are some places to start.
How to Pay for It
One of the most intimidating things about going to college is the cost. Stories about graduates drowning in student loan debt are plentiful, making many hesitant to take loans even if they are offered. And, for students from particularly low-income families, just seeing the number associated with a school’s annual tuition may be more than they can manage mentally.
It is critical that minority students have a thorough understanding of all of the options for paying tuition. This includes everything from need-based government grants, such as the Federal Pell Grant, to merit-based institutional scholarships to private scholarship opportunities offered by industry organizations and charities.
Taking the time to teach minority students about what is available, as well as how to apply for these funds, can make the financial burden more manageable, or even non-existent. As financial barriers are removed, more high school students may be able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by a college education.
The Range of Options
Going to college doesn’t mean you have to pursue a traditional four-year degree. Currently, there is a looming shortage of skilled tradespeople like welders, electricians, machinists, plumbers, and carpenters. And that shortage means there are significant opportunities for those interested in exploring these careers.
Often, obtaining education focused on a skilled trade is less expensive than a traditional university education, and many programs can be completed in just a couple of years. In some cases, those attending classes can gain experience through apprenticeships, allowing them to work on their education while earning wages.
Additionally, many programs focused on skilled trades don’t require the same general education requirements as a four-year degree. That means that, if a student struggled in classes like history or literature, it is a non-issue for completing many trade-oriented programs.
Helping high school students understand that these options are available can encourage those who may think that a college education isn’t for them to reconsider.
There is Help for Struggling Students
Colleges and universities often have departments and services created to help students succeed. This includes access to tutors and study groups. Additionally, some college instructors are available outside of their classroom hours to assist students who want to learn but are having trouble grasping a particular topic.
Institutions of higher learning want their students to succeed, so there are mechanisms in place to help make the dream of obtaining a degree a reality. But students need to know that they are there when assistance is needed.
With the right information, more minority students may feel comfortable pursuing more education once they graduate from high school. By managing concerns about tuition costs, educational requirements, available programs, and the availability of assistance, the college experience may feel more accessible to everyone.
Talk about the need to make a college-level education more accessible is common. Everyone understands that a college education is valuable and that many jobs list a degree as a requirement for applying, so those without a college degree are missing out on opportunities. So, what does it take to make higher education accessible to a larger portion of the population? Affordability.
Understanding Affordability
There are numerous programs designed to help students pay for college. Some options, like grants and scholarships, allow students to access funds that do not need to be repaid under most circumstances. But these funds don’t make the college experience more affordable, just cheaper.
If something is affordable, it is considered within one’s financial means. And for many, the cost of tuition today just isn’t affordable.
The Affordability of Applying
A surprising barrier for many low-income students applying to college are the fees associated with the application process. For example, SAT, ACT, and AP exam fees can be substantial. Then, once suitable scores are earned, an additional fee is required for every educational institution to which they apply.
While many of these fees are waived for those meeting certain income-based criteria, the income requirements are often quite strict. Students whose families are slightly above the cutoff will find these costs challenging. That can mean that low-income households may only be able to afford for the student to take one exam, a single time. Additionally, they will be limited to the number of colleges to which they can apply.
By lowering, or eliminating, some of these costs, higher education can be more accessible to lower income households. They will have more opportunities to to college entrance exams, giving them chances to improve their scores over time, as well as the option of applying to more schools.
Improving Tuition Affordability
The costs of higher education have risen dramatically; at one point tripling over the course of three decades. However, the average rise in household income is comparably negligible. And that means that a college education has become less affordable over time, even though it is now considered to be a necessity.
Lower-income students who don’t find sufficient grants or scholarships to manage the majority of the cost will likely determine a degree to be outside of their reach. Even if loans are available, the amounts required may be too intimidating to students who are part of a household whose annual income falls well below the amount charged as tuition.
Even if tuition amounts can’t be lowered, the affordability for low-income students can be improved by providing resources to help them obtain as much financial assistance. Providing education about available opportunities and assistance in meeting application requirements will help student access more funding sources, and possibly eliminate out-of-pocket expenses.
Cost is the Barrier
Often, the primary barrier to any student and a college education is the cost. While tuition and fees can’t be eliminated from the paradigm, resources are available to help those most in need navigate these expenses more efficiently. Additionally, widen the requirements for free or low-cost testing and application fees to improve the chances that low-income students will receive suitable scores and be accepted into high-quality schools.
Earning a college education is something that is a double-edged sword for the nation’s youngest adults and for some of their parents too. Society dictates that some form of secondary education is an absolute must for lifetime success but the cost associated with earning those credentials is debilitating. The Washington Post reports that the average college student will graduate with $25,000 in debt. With over $1 trillion in outstanding loans, student debt outweighs credit card debt and is exempt from bankruptcy protection.
Some may say this is just the cost of doing business and that a few years (or decades) of repaying student loans is worth the cost in the long run. If a person truly values his future, repaying loans and interest rates are just part of proving his dedication. To each his own, and other related monikers.
But what if that mentality were flipped? What if there was no cost to obtain a college education and it was viewed as a basic right, much like the K-12 public school system? It seems that the knee-jerk response is to claim that the nation can’t afford it. The trillion-dollar college education industry, coupled with the lending companies that “help” finance these endeavors, would feasibly go under if students did not have to find, earn or borrow the tens of thousands necessary to prove they care about their career.
Perhaps that’s true. But how would the economy as a whole look if college student debt disappeared? Instead of taking the first, low-paying job that came along in order to desperately find the cash to start repaying loans, maybe students would hold out for the perfect job where their talents and education could be best utilized. Instead of the nearly 22 million young adults living at home with their parents, maybe those kids would invest in their own housing and start contributing to that industry faster. Parents who save every penny in order to pay for college would feasibly have more cash to put back into other aspects of the economy, strengthening whatever industries they touched.
When the facts are really examined, it seems that the only ones truly benefitting from the current higher education model are the institutions themselves and the companies that support lending. In the second quarter of this year, private lender Sallie Mae reported $543 million in net income. In 2013 alone, Sallie Mae has spent over $1.2 million lobbying against legislation meant to relieve some of the college debt strain. Much like the skyrocketing healthcare industry costs over the past two decades, colleges and lenders have been left to their own devices with improper regulations.
While an economy hindrance, the high price tag of a college education has very little resistance when observing the nation’s population as a whole. Colleges and lending companies have, for the most part, gotten “a pass” because the pursuit of knowledge is deemed a worthy one where price should never be considered an issue. Under the guise of a better-educated workforce, colleges and lenders have been able to get away with more than any other industry providing a basic, American service. What would the reaction be if utility costs rose that quickly, or the price of a gallon of milk?
For a college education to really have the intended impact on the individual and society as a whole, it needs to be affordable – or completely free. It is a basic American right.
Do you think a free college education system would have a positive impact on the economy?
The demand for information technology workers is growing, and the available supply isn’t keeping pace. With the retirement of the baby boomer generation in full swing, worker shortages are only going to be more apparent in the year to come. And, if the information technology field can’t attract a more diverse population, the field is going to suffer.
Tech companies are generally not known for diversity. The IT workforce is predominantly white or Asian males. Even though many companies announce diversity initiatives on a regular basis, they can only hire from the worker pool that is available. And that pool is created based on their choices in higher education.
Minorities in Computer Science
In 2013, a study showed that out of all of the bachelor’s degrees awarded through 179 prestigious universities, 4.5 percent were awarded to black students and 6.5 percent went to Hispanic students. However, the US Census Bureau showed that the population was 12.6 percent black and 16.3 percent Hispanic as of 2010.
This suggests that minority students aren’t being attracted into the computer science field. Couple this with the low number of black and Hispanic students participating in the AP Computer Science exam in high school, and that fact becomes more apparent.
Since black and Hispanic students are underrepresented in technology-oriented education, they will be underrepresented in the information technology workforce as well. And this issue is compounded by negative impressions many minorities have regarding the culture at many tech companies.
Minority Hiring at Tech Companies
The hiring numbers from tech giants like Google, Apple, and Facebook do not paint a welcoming picture to minority students interested in technical fields. Often, this negative impression leads minorities to seek work in lower-paying positions outside of traditional tech companies. In fact, many default to office or administrative positions even though their degrees indicate greater potential.
So how can additional diversity in information technology higher education help overcome low levels of hiring? By creating a larger qualified candidate pool of minority students. If there are more available, then companies may be moved to hire more minority applicants.
Improving Diversity
Part of what encourages students to pursue specific degrees is a sense of belonging. Often, this involves finding a role model with traits similar to their own as a source of inspiration to move forward. In technology, the population working in the field lacks diversity, making it more challenging for students to find suitable role models from which to choose.
In some cases, the lack of diversity is apparent even sooner. For example, university, college, and high school teachers are seen as representatives of the field for many students. If there is no diversity in hiring for these teaching positions, minority students may be less inclined to picture themselves pursuing these fields even if they otherwise have an interest in the work.
If educational institutions hire with an unconscious bias, similar to what may exist in the technology community as a whole, then they are likely to choose instructors based on preconceived notions instead of purely on capability. By breaking the cycle, and introducing computer science and technology students to a diverse group of educators throughout their schooling, the amount of diversity in the field as a whole can increase. And, once diversity is seen as the norm, that will support a cycle of diversity and inclusion instead of what we see today.
Nonmedical use of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drugs on college campuses, such as Adderall, Ritalin, Concerta and Vyvanse, has exploded in the past decade, with a parallel rise in depression disorders and binge drinking among young adults.
These ADHD drugs act as a brain stimulant that are normally prescribed to individuals who display symptoms of ADHD. These stimulants boost the availability of dopamine, a chemical responsible for transmitting signals between the nerve cells (neurons) of the brain.
But now a growing student population has been using them as “study” drugs – that help them stay up all night and concentrate. According to a 2007 National Institutes of Health (NIH) study, abuse of nonmedical prescription drugs among college students, such as ADHD meds, increased from 8.3 percent in 1996 to 14.6 percent in 2006.
My journey with investigating the effect of the stimulant use nonmedically on college campuses started with a question from a student seven years ago. The question was about the long-term effect of misuse on brain and physical health. Having an educational background in cell and molecular biology with a concentration in neuroscience, I started a literature review and soon became an educator on the topic to teach students about the effects of such stimulant misuse on the maturing brain.
College students who take ADHD drugs without medical need could risk developing drug dependence as well as a host of mental ailments.
Substance abuse in college
College students have been reported to use many stimulants, including but not limited to Adderrall, Ritalin and Dexedrine.
According to the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, students who used Adderall for nonmedical purposes were three times more likely than those who had not used Adderall nonmedically to use marijuana. They were also eight times more likely to use cocaine. In addition, 90 percent of the students who used Adderall nonmedically were binge alcohol consumers.
Generally, college students who abuse ADHD drugs are white, male and part of a fraternity or a sorority. Often they have a low GPA as well.
ADHD drugs appear harmless to many, as often they are prescribed by physicians, even though these drugs have a “Black Box warning,” which
appears on a prescription drug’s label to call attention to serious or life-threatening risks. Despite such a strict warning from the FDA, many practitioners end up prescribing them based on subjective reporting of symptoms of ADHD. The lack of a gold standard for ADHD diagnosis has, in fact, led to physicians overprescribing the drug.
Furthermore, students who get hold of these prescriptions can easily sell pills on the black market. Students who buy these pills illicitly miss seeing the warning about potential abuse, addiction and other side effects.
What’s more, a chewable form of an ADHD drug has been recently introduced in the market. These are fruity-flavored extended-release drugs that dissolve instantly in the mouth. They are targeted for children for a fast medicated response, but present a great potential for abuse.
The neurobiology of addiction
What are the consequences of taking these drugs without a medical condition?
The nonmedical use of the ADHD drugs (stimulants) is of great concern because it raises levels of dopamine the same way illicit drugs do. Therefore, abuse of these drugs may cause the same effect on addiction, brain rewiring and behavioral alteration.
While students may be aware of the harmful effects of “doing drugs,” the use of the ADHD drugs nonmedically may seem harmless because they are prescription medicine.
There is a limited body of knowledge on the effect of long-term nonmedical ADHD drug abuse on the developing brain. Of concern are potential permanent alterations taking place in the pathways of nerve cells of the maturing brain.
ADHD drugs could be addictive, if used without medical necessity. Since brain development continues into the mid-20s and the young brain is remarkably plastic, this sets up a risk of developing chronic substance abuse, addiction and mental ailments.
Nonmedical ADHD drugs, like any illegal drug, collectively activate a nerve pathway known as the “reward system of the brain.” This reward system is responsible for positive feelings such as motivation and pleasure. From an evolutionary point of view, the circuit controls an individual’s responses to motivation and pleasure (e.g., food and sex) which promote survival and fitness, respectively.
The response of the brain reward system to natural cues is highly regulated by a homeostatic mechanism – a process by which the body maintains its constant internal environment.
Individuals can ‘function’ only when the brain is on drugs. Steve Snodgrass, CC BY
However, a nonmedical ADHD drug, like an illegal drug, overactivates this “reward circuit,” thereby disturbing the brain’s internal balance. This causes the brain to maladapt (structurally and functionally) and turn the brain into being “substance-dependent.” These changes happen at the genetic level.
A consequence of this is that the brain starts to need an increased dosage of the drug to respond to the natural cues for motivation and life pleasures. This sets the stage for more substance abuse. The individual then reaches for higher doses and more potent substances. Eventually, a cycle of further dependence and drug abuse ensues.
Impact of abuse
The concern with the nonmedical ADHD drug abuse is that it might prime the brain for use of other substances such as alcohol, cocaine and marijuana (something that the national surveys mentioned above revealed).
Animal studies show that the changes that lead to rewiring of the brain are due to an alteration in gene function. Some of these changes become permanent and heritable, especially with prolonged abuse, meaning that the altered (newly programmed) genes are passed down to offspring.
In fact, a body of evidence is linking the process of addiction (among many chronic diseases) to altered gene function profile passed down by ancestors. This altered profile could predispose their offspring to certain disorders.
Currently, prescription of ADHD drug is based mostly on subjective self-reported symptoms, and a gold standard for ADHD diagnosis remains to be perfected. As a lyric from the rock band Marilyn Manson says:
Whatever does not kill you, it’s gonna leave a scar.
That’s the case with nonprescription ADHD drug abuse.
When students come to pursue their educational interests, they believe they are entering a safe environment. But while colleges are thought of as “ivory towers,” they can also be places where students could become victims of a crime.
In my research on victims of crime, I have found that particular types of students are more exposed to risks in a college environment. The risks are often tied to the party culture endemic on college campuses, where alcohol consumption is a major feature.
Who is on campus
Often these students choose to enroll in universities in the U.S. for a quality education or to be able to pursue the major and career path of their choice.
For almost all young people, this is the first time that they are away from home, responsible for themselves, without adult supervision and an abundance of unstructured time. Part of college culture involves spending time at parties and bars, recreational drug use and engaging in other risky behaviors (e.g., binge drinking, hooking up).
Alcohol consumption becomes a major feature of such activities. Data indicate that about 65 percent of college students consume alcohol in a given month, and less than half of college students engage in binge drinking.
Drinking alcohol can increase the chances of being a crime victim because alcohol use impairs judgment and perception, decreases the ability to recognize and react to risk, impairs decision-making and delays reaction time.
Are all college students at risk?
Research shows about a third of college students could be victims of a crime during a given year. However, the risks could be different for different ethnic and racial groups on campus.
For example, there could be a higher risk for some groups such as non-Hispanic white men. This group faces the highest risk – most likely a result of participation in the party culture. White, male college students drink alcohol at greater levels and engage in more risky drinking than do female or African-American college students.
But there is a small percentage of international students who come to American campuses as well. In 2015, there were 1.13 million international college students enrolled in the U.S., with the largest percentage coming from China.
What is the risk international students face of being a victim?
Our research explored this possibility, given that international students may have unique experiences before and while attending college in the U.S.
Our study used data from the Fall 2012 American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment II. This study is a national survey of college students that is done in the fall and spring. Our study sample included 26,012 students, 8.6 percent of whom were international students.
We found that overall, when asked about their experiences from the previous 12 months, international students were less likely to be “violently victimized” – that is, physically assaulted and/or verbally threatened – compared to domestic students. A physical assault might include being hit, punched, kicked, bitten or even shot, while a verbal threat might be experienced when a person is told that he or she is going to get beaten up or is going to be shot.
Nineteen percent of domestic students in our study indicated that they had been physically assaulted or verbally threatened, compared to 17 percent of international students.
Female international students are safer?
Subsequently, we looked at differences in risk for male and female international college students. We found that male international students were less likely to be victims of a crime, and so were international female students.
Our study found 22 percent of male international students had been assaulted or threatened, compared with 26 percent of male domestic students. Fourteen percent of female international students had been assaulted or threatened, while 16 percent of female domestic students faced these experiences.
These differences may seem small, and in magnitude, they are. But, we used a large sample of over 26,000 students, which leads us to feel confident that our findings are unlikely to be a result of a problem with our sample. Also, when you consider how many students attend college, a two percent difference (such as what we found between female international students and female domestic students in their risk) could be tens or hundreds of thousands of students.
In an additional set of analyses, we included other factors that previous research has shown to be related to risk on campus, such as alcohol consumption and being a first-year college student. We found that female international students faced fewer risks than did female domestic students. In fact, female international students’ odds of being harmed were 14 percent lower than female domestic students.
And why might this be the case? We found that female international students tended to have a less risky profile than their domestic student counterparts – they binge-drank less, were less likely to use drugs, were less likely to be a first-year undergraduate and were less likely to have a disability.
While there are still some unanswered questions, we believe there must be something unique about how female international students experience college. It is possible that female international students may not be fully engaging in college life. It is possible they might be under increased levels of guardianship or they may experience culture conflict.
Colleges should work to ensure that international students are a thriving part of the campus community while ensuring that they remain safe. Colleges should also provide culturally sensitive victim responses to international students.
Can a few text messages, a timely email or a letter increase college enrollment and student achievement? Such “nudges,” designed carefully using behavioral economics, can be effective.
But when do they work – and when not?
Barriers to success
Consider students who have just graduated high school intending to enroll in college. Even among those who have been accepted to college, 15 percent of low-income students do not enroll by the next fall. For the large share who intend to enroll in community colleges, this number can be as high as 40 percent.
There are a number of possible reasons for this attrition: many families overestimate the cost of college because the sticker price of colleges can be much higher than the net price (the sticker price minus the potentially large amount of aid a low-income student could receive); students may struggle with complex financial aid forms; there may be a lack of support to guide them through the application process. So, even when low-income students who are high-achieving do enroll in college, the majority fail to enroll in a college that is comparable to their level of achievement.
Can a few text messages or a timely email overcome these barriers? My research uses behavioral economics to design low-cost, scalable interventions aimed at improving education outcomes. Behavioral economics suggests several important features to make a nudge effective: simplify complex information, make tasks easier to complete and ensure that support is timely.
So, what makes for an effective nudge?
Improving college enrollment
In 2012, researchers Ben Castleman and Lindsay Page sent 10 text messages to nearly 2,000 college-intending students the summer after high school graduation. These messages provided just-in-time reminders on key financial aid, housing and enrollment deadlines from early July to mid August.
Instead of set meetings with counselors, students could reply to messages and receive on-demand support from college guidance counselors to complete key tasks.
The mailer simplified information by providing a list of colleges tailored to each student’s location along with information about net costs, graduation rates, and application deadlines. Moreover, the mailer included easy-to-claim application fee waivers. All these features reduced both the complexity and cost in applying to a wider range of colleges.
In both cases, researchers found that it significantly improved college outcomes. College enrollment went up by 15 percent in the intervention designed to reduce summer melt for community college students. The ECO project increased the likelihood of admission to a selective college by 78 percent.
Getting parents involved
Of course, it’s not just at college enrollment time that nudging can be helpful. Parents also face behavioral barriers while their children are in middle and high school. Many parents underestimate the number of assignments their child has not turned in as well as the number of school days their child has missed. Unfortunately, schools often do a poor job communicating this information to parents in a timely fashion.
I tested an intervention that sent text messages to parents about their child’s missed assignments and grades. The messages were frequent – sent four times more often than report cards – and provided detailed information to parents about their child’s missed assignments and grades. Each message listed page numbers and problems students needed to complete so that parents could track their child’s progress.
Parents responded by communicating with the school more often and motivating their children to do the work: students turned in 25 percent more assignments, which led to significant improvements in grades and evidence of increased math scores.
When there is no impact
While these interventions are promising, there are important caveats.
For instance, our preliminary findings from ongoing research show that information alone may not be enough. We sent emails and letters to more than one hundred thousand college applicants about financial aid and education-related tax benefits. However, we didn’t provide any additional support to help families through the process of claiming these benefits.
In other words, we didn’t provide any support to complete the tasks – no fee waivers, no connection to guidance counselors – just the email and the letter. Without this support to answer questions or help families complete forms to claim the benefits, we found no impact, even when students opened the emails.
More generally, “nudges” often lead to modest impacts and should be considered only a part of the solution. But there’s a dearth of low-cost, scalable interventions in education, and behavioral economics can help.
Identifying the crucial decision points – when applications are due, forms need to be filled out or school choices are made – and supplying the just-in-time support to families is key.
We know that American higher education faces serious long-term problems. However, reducing tuition or college debt to zero isn’t the right way to solve them.
We have been studying America’s higher education system and college costs. Our research tells us that the deep problems in American higher education today aren’t due to the fact that students borrow or pay tuition. It is because the schools serving the bulk of America’s underprivileged students are increasingly resource-starved.
So, what should our candidates be worrying about when it comes to higher education? And what policies might make a dent in our real problems?
Inequality in higher education
Let’s first look at how higher education has been split into separate and unequal worlds.
As researchers Caroline Hoxby and Sarah Turner have shown, students who attend a college ranked “most competitive” by Barron’s, a financial magazine, enjoy $27,000 of instructional spending per student. These include schools such as Yale, Duke, Kenyon and the University of Miami. At a “non-selective” four-year university that number drops to $5,000. This group includes many non-flagship state universities and small liberal arts colleges that accept most applicants.
The divide is further deepened as only a small percentage of low-income students are able to attend top universities. Only four percent of the students who attend the institutions rated as “most competitive” are from the bottom quarter of the socioeconomic status distribution. Students from the bottom half of the income distribution cluster at community colleges and non-selective four-year institutions.
Rising income inequality and declining state support for higher education further risks cementing in place this division between first class and steerage class education.
Rising inequality, declining state support
Consider the following facts: Most of the income growth since 1965 has gone to the richest 20 percent of American households. Since 2000, a household at the bottom fifth has lost $3,200, measured in 2014 dollars, or 13 percent of its income. But America’s richest five percent earns an extra $7,000.
U.S. household Income from 1967 to 2013. David Feldman, Author provided
For students from poor and middle-income families, stagnant or declining income is a real barrier to college access unless state or federal subsidies become more liberal.
But most states have cut funding to public universities. Between 2000-01 and 2014-15, annual state spending per full-time student fell by $2,573, measured in 2014 dollars. Over the same time period the annual tuition and fees paid by the average student at a public four-year university have risen by $2,038, also measured in 2014 dollars. Tuition increases have not fully recovered state cuts.
Despite tuition increases, public universities, and especially the less-selective non-flagships that serve the bulk of the population, are increasingly resource-starved.
Our calculations, based on data from the Delta Cost Project,which conducts research on how colleges spend their money, show the following: In 1987, public universities spent 88 cents for every dollar that private nonprofit institutions spent on the wages and salaries that drive instruction. By 1999 the ratio had fallen to 81 cents. And by 2010, it had fallen further, to 73 cents on the dollar.
These researchers found that increases in the student/faculty ratio were the main culprit in declining graduation rates at public universities. This is driven by lack of resources. At community colleges, weaker student preparation is the problem, and this is a consequence of poverty.
What are candidates saying?
But these are not the issues that worry our candidates most. College debt has grabbed the headlines, so college debt has grabbed their attention.
Donald Trump. Joshua Roberts/Reuters
Donald Trump’s website currently contains nothing about higher education. But his campaign co-chair, Sam Clovis, recently offered the outlines of a Trump position. Among the proposals is that government should get out of the loan business – handing it back to private banks.
What would that mean for high school students, who have no collateral and no credit record? Banks generally will not lend money to 18-year-olds with nebulous plans, absent a guarantee. Clovis suggested the guarantee would come from colleges and universities, who would have to pay for student default. Their “skin” would be in the game.
In fact, Trump’s program would hand private banks a financial windfall, because they would earn the fees and interest, and if a student failed to keep up on payments, someone else would take the hit. In Trump’s world, those would be the schools that currently work with large numbers of “risky” underprivileged students.
Hillary Clinton’s platform contains a $25 billion fund to support private nonprofit colleges that serve underprivileged students. This would be, in our view, a step in the right direction if it could pass through Congress.
What we know about student debt
The substantive proposal in Clinton’s New College Compact is the following:
Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt.
Our point is there is no good reason why debt should be off the table. Substantial gains go to the students who earn a degree, and reasonable amounts of debt are a good way to finance any long-run investment. Students who borrow near the average levels ($25,000 to $32,000), and who graduate, tend to have little difficulty paying back.
A demonstrator holds up a sign to protest student debt. Andrew Burton/Reuters
As Sandy Baum of the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, has shown, most of the “extreme” debt is concentrated in two places. The first is graduate students. The returns to their degrees are larger and less uncertain.
A doctor with $160,000 in debt is in much better shape than a dropout who has $14,000 to pay. Most of the dropouts come from under-resourced schools that serve our most at-risk students – this is a problem that worsens inequality.
The second is the for-profit sector. Although for-profits account for only nine percent of degrees awarded, they are responsible for a quarter of the total number of students whose debt exceeds $50,000. For-profits serve a lot of older students and many veterans using GI benefits.
What needs to change
In our view, two reforms could help break the trend toward inequality in the American higher education system.
The first is related to the federal government’s need-based Pell Grants of up to $5,815 per academic year. Pell Grants, which are awarded to low-income, undergraduate students, do not have to be repaid. So, they reduce the price of a year in college.
Yet the cost of services – which includes everything from restaurant meals and haircuts to dental care and higher education – has risen faster than the inflation rate. As a result, a Pell Grant covers a declining portion of the cost of a year in college. The maximum Pell Grant covered 94 percent of the tuition and fees at a public university in 2000-01. By 2015-16 it covered only 61 percent. Congress could set the Pell maximum simply by tying increases to an index of service prices.
The second reform that we suggest is a federal program to encourage states to raise their own investment in public universities. Former Democratic Senator Tom Harkin proposed giving states a federal grant based on how much funding they provided per student at their own public universities.
In Harkin’s proposal, states would qualify for a grant if they spent at least $2,865 per student annually. States that offered more funding of their own could get a bigger grant per student from the federal government.
The advantage of Harkin’s bill was that it did not propose to micromanage how the grant would be used. States could use it to hold down tuition growth, but they could also use it to improve the quality of the programming to help underprivileged students. Those are the students who currently fail in large numbers at underfunded public institutions.
We believe these two ideas alone could be a down payment on a fairer higher education system. These ideas would help funnel more resources into the colleges and universities that educate the vast majority of America’s at-risk student population.
A recent report by the Boston-based Pioneer Institute pointed out how out-of-state enrollments at the University of Massachusetts are limiting opportunities for in-state students.
For the right-leaning Pioneer Institute, UMass is an example of the public sector run amok. But Pioneer is not alone. There are others who have voiced similar concerns. For example, a state audit came out with a scathing criticism of University of California for discriminating against local students. And recent federal data show 43 of the 50 state flagship schools enrolled fewer local students in 2014 than they did a decade earlier.
My experience as a higher education researcher suggests it is important to understand why colleges and universities are enrolling students from out of state. The point being that years of underfunding and the growth of market-based practices such as competition for tuition revenue have created incentives for colleges and universities to enroll nonresidents. The consequence of this has been added financial strain on lower-income students.
When public universities devote fewer resources to lower-income or minority students, that shows an erosion of the very mission for which the state colleges and universities, were founded.
Wooing nonresident students
Data complied by the College Board show the share of out-of-state students at public colleges and universities grew in 38 states between 2002 and 2012.
And it is not just prominent flagship schools that attracted out-of-state students. A study from the New America Foundation, a public policy think tank, found that even regional colleges are wooing nonresident students.
Is it diversity that is getting state universities to enroll nonresident students?Fabrice Florin, CC BY-SA
Clearly, out-of-state students can provide many educational gains: college students benefit when they interact with each other through a process economists call “peer effects,” which include the learning and social development students get from each other. Educational research shows all students gain from a diverse student body. By engaging with peers with different experience and viewpoints, students learn more both in and out of the classroom.
But it may not be the benefits of a diverse student body that are driving public schools to enroll nonresidents.
Going after the money
Nonresident students pay higher tuition at public colleges and universities. In 2013, average in-state tuition at public four-year colleges was US$7,526, but a whopping $17,047 for nonresidents.
Public institutions have been experiencing declining state funding for decades For example, state funds accounted for 52.8 percent of operating expenditures at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1987, but only 16.9 percent by 2012.
It comes as no surprise then that these institutions would look to nonresident students for additional revenue.
A recent study found a strong relationship between state funding and nonresident students enrollment. When states increase funding, public institutions enroll fewer nonresidents.
“Enticing” students
Public colleges and universities were established by the states to educate residents and to improve the lives of people through research and service. However, in recent years, these institutions have become increasingly focused on improving their own bottom line and competing in the marketplace. Recruiting nonresident students who pay high tuition is one way in which public schools compete in markets.
The market for nonresident students can be understood as a form of interstate and international commerce.
Policymakers in the U.S. have long favored markets in higher education, the idea being that when institutions compete they will offer better-quality and lower-priced education.
The question of quality is difficult to assess, but here is the impact this market-based approach had on price.
Changes to the way higher education was funded in the 1980s and 1990s encouraged colleges to compete for revenue. Aid came to be allocated to students rather than schools and more in the form of loans. Along with this came shrinking of direct funding from the states while increasing funds available through competition.
Over time, competition for revenue helped to drive the price of tuition up. Adjusting for inflation, the average net price for instate tuition at public four-year colleges increased by 170 percent between 1990 to 2015.
Predictably, students and institutions with the fewest resources are left to face the greatest challenges of such a steep hike. In 2008, it took 90 percent of family earnings to cover tuition at a public four-year college for students in the bottom fifth of the income distribution.
In this process, institutions that enroll a high proportion of local lower-income students rather than competing for lucrative nonresidents have become most vulnerable.
For example, underfunding has resulted in overcrowded classrooms and crumbling facilities at the City University of New York, where over half of the students come from families with incomes below US$30,000. And this is not the only such example.
Setting limitations on nonresident students might seem to be common sense. However, institutional autonomy has been a strength of higher education in the U.S.
Further, my evaluation of the evidence suggests that it is funding cuts and market competition rather than nonresident enrollments per se that have drawn higher education away from its public mission.
Perhaps little can be done in the near term. But over a longer period public reinvestment combined with renewal of the public mission among state intuitions seems a more sustainable path than an arbitrary cap on nonresident enrollments.
Many Americans are surprised by the 2016 election results, but at this point, the results will stand and later this month, a new U.S. President will be inaugurated. It remains to be seen what the Trump presidency will mean for diversity – and that’s true at the college level too.
If we want to make a positive difference for the future of America, change begins with education. Emphasis must be placed on the inclusion of all students, regardless of gender, ethnicity or economic status. Diversifying our nation’s elite colleges would be a step in the right direction. An increased number of college graduates from top universities equates to a more educated, skilled and productive workforce for our country.
Reaching the Working-Class Student
Though many colleges and universities enroll students with diverse ethnicities from all over the globe, disadvantaged students do not typically enjoy the same inclusion. Overall, college just isn’t as accessible to working-class students. What’s more, troubling is that many low and middle-class students could thrive at a top university if only given a chance. Often, financially disadvantaged students who obtain top test scores and grades, don’t even bother applying to these schools.
Case in point: According to a study conducted by education researchers from Harvard and Stanford, just 34 percent of high school seniors who excelled academically and were in the bottom income distribution bracket, attended one of the nation’s selective colleges. For students in the highest income category, the figure was 78 percent. Although public and private universities have expressed a desire to recruit economically diverse students, it’s just not happening.
Unfortunately, of the low-income students who do choose to pursue higher education, many select community colleges or institutions based primarily on their proximity to home. The outcome of attending these schools is that fewer resources tend to be offered and many formerly high-achieving high school students, wind up not even graduating college.
Early Encouragement
Paving the way early on can set the tone for a child’s entire educational career. If programs and services can be tailored to the students who are most often overlooked, we may be able to influence the number of diverse college students positively. By identifying and targeting disadvantaged children as young as middle school age, schools may be able to, at the very minimum, provide information on the importance of quality higher education.
Resources and dedicated staff should be made available during the school day for students to access throughout their education. Delivering financial aid information and materials to interested students would also go a long way in establishing awareness for available assistance. It’s crucial that top ranked universities play their part, as well. Offering community outreach programs and forging public school partnerships in poor areas, is a good place to start.
If institutions become more accessible to students via programming and recruitment endeavors, the odds that students will be fully informed when it comes time to consider higher education are increased.
Beyond Test Scores
In addition to an emphasis on better targeting and programming throughout schooling, colleges may also want to examine their traditional means of determining and selecting candidates. Less focus on grades and SAT/ACT scores and more attention placed on student portfolios and potential should be in order. How a student will fare in college, and in the working world, aren’t always made evident by test scores. The option of taking other qualifications into account allows institutions the opportunity to diversify their student population greatly.
Another issue worth touching on is retention of diverse students and what can be done to ensure their collegiate success. Programs and support for non-traditional students would be ideal, even being offered before classes beginning, to aid in easing the transition. Resources specific to first-generation students, full-time working students, and students who are parents, are just a few examples of the specifically targeted assistance that could make a positive impact.
The bottom line is, higher education opportunities need to be equally available to all. If we are to correct the inequality running rampant at colleges nationwide, special focus must be made to assist underprivileged students in their quest for higher education.
