Search News


Browse Archives

News

Why Some of the Best and Brightest Skip College

November 14, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Many college-qualified students who choose not to enroll in college may have made up their minds well before high school graduation, according to a new study from the Institute for Higher Education Policy and underwritten by the Education Resources Institute. The study also finds that the steep price of college and the shrinking availability of financial aid are the primary reasons these students -- and their guidance and college counselors -- cite for their decision not to enroll.

Michelle Asha Cooper, president of the policy institute, said having a well-informed understanding of why students who are qualified for college choose not to enroll will help policy makers and educators improve access to higher education. The results of this study, she said, show the complex nature of the question many students face when they decide whether to attend college.

The institute’s report defined as “college qualified” those who had earned at least a 2.5 high school grade point average (GPA), taken a “college-preparatory curriculum" including but not limited to some Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses, and taken some levels of advanced mathematics (algebra I or II, pre-calculus, calculus, and/or trigonometry). The survey included the responses of nearly 1,800 of these students -- about 1,000 of whom did not enroll in college. Additionally, it included the responses of about 600 guidance and college counselors from high schools around the country.

Those students who did not enroll in college were disproportionally members of minority groups -- 48 percent Hispanic, black, Asian, or American Indian/Native Alaskan -- and many were from low-income families. The survey finds that many of these students did not take the basic steps to enroll in college. Only 32 percent of non-college goers visited a college while still in high school. Additionally, only 10 percent took the SAT and seven percent took the ACT.

Even so, most non-college goers were significantly above what the survey defines as the minimum standards of college qualification. Nearly two-thirds of non-college goers reported that they had received advice on the coursework needed for college, more than half had a GPA higher than 3.0, and almost 60 percent had taken some sort of mathematics capstone course -- pre-calculus, calculus or trigonometry.

In determining why these students chose not to attend college, the survey finds that financial concerns were among the most significant barriers. More than 80 percent of non-college goers reported that the availability of financial aid was either “extremely” or “very” important in their decision not to enroll. Additionally, 63 percent said the price of college was either “extremely” or “very” important in the decision. College counselors echoed a similar reason for their students’ decision not to enroll -- 70 percent reported that a lack of financial aid or high tuition was “almost always” or “frequently” among the reasons they heard.

Combined with these financial concerns, some non-college goers expressed an aversion to borrowing money and a lack of knowledge about the risk of loan default. A third of these students reported this to be “extremely” or “very” important in their decision. While this is low compared to other financial reasons, taking on loans proved to be more of a concern for Hispanic non-college goers -- two-thirds of whom “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that “loans are only good as a last resort or in an emergency.”

Willis J. Hulings, III, president and CEO of the private loan guarantor TERI, noted that the data for this survey were pulled before the current “credit crunch” and cautions that he anticipates greater difficulty for those who view loans as a barrier to college education. Still, he said there could be any number of reasons some non-college goers do not take out loans and are subsequently priced out of higher education.

“In this case, if you look at low-income families in particular, I believe you may have some who have experienced a relative who had difficulty with a credit card or had a car repossessed,” Hulings said, noting that the higher education policy institute will release a more in-depth study on reasons for debt aversion in December. “Some folks may be culturally averse to debt. They may not believe in using debt for anything and working on a kind-of cash basis.”

Opportunity cost also factored into the decision of many not to enroll in college. Thirty-eight percent of non-college goers expressed a need to work, and 24 percent of these students said they faced the obstacle of family obligations -- such as raising a child or caring for a sick relative.

No matter the reasons qualified students chose not to attend college, both Cooper and Hulings both said that more accurate and easily accessible information needs to be available to help reverse this trend. Although counselors responded that a lack of information about financial aid and college admission were among the least of the worries their non-college goers expressed, the survey notes that many students may not know how to process the information being given to them. Hulings said that at many public high schools, one counselor may be responsible for upwards of 400 students. This strain on the system, he said, might account for some of the misinformation about financial aid, loans and the college admission process.

IHEP recommends a number of policy steps to deal with the concerns raised in its study. Among its recommendations, the study states that high schools should set “clear expectations about academic requirements at an early stage” by making the college preparatory curriculum the norm for all students, regardless of their intentions regarding postsecondary education. Additionally, the study recommends that high schools establish a required course on “college planning” as early as the seventh grade.

“All individuals should be given the opportunity to reach their full educational potential,” Cooper said, acknowledging that this need not imply college is a destination for all students. “We should have high expectation of all our students, no matter where they come from. We can’t afford to lose millions of students in the pipeline just because they are financially needy. As a society, we assume people who don’t have money have less potential. We don’t believe that at IHEP.”

Aside from changes in the classroom, the study also suggests that states and the federal government make early commitments -- at least at the beginning of high school -- to meet the college costs of students who meet “certain standards of college readiness.” Hulings cited the example of Georgia’s Hope Scholarship Program -- which guarantees a student full tuition to a state college for a certain number of credit hours if they graduate with a 3.0 average GPA or better in high school. Cooper, however, cited Indiana's Twenty-first Century Scholars Program as another model. This program pays four years of tuition at a public state institution for low-income students who maintain a cumulative 2.0 GPA in high school. Hulings and Cooper both said that other states are likely to follow these models of early commitment, adding that this may lure many qualified students who now choose not to enroll in college.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Why Some of the Best and Brightest Skip College

  • Financial, Cultural Reasons, yes, but
  • Posted by DFS on November 14, 2008 at 7:35am EST
  • I consider it also to be possible that at least some of our "best and brightest" might also be turning up in our military forces.

  • Posted by Carolyn on November 14, 2008 at 8:40am EST
  • A great study! It is good to see that this is being studied. I've seen so many students either not begin or drop out of college because of fears of debt.

  • college qualified?
  • Posted by collegeloanconsultant on November 14, 2008 at 8:40am EST
  • According to the study, only 10% of those "college qualified" students who did not go on to college, took the SAT or ACT. Perhaps if their schools had a goal of 100% participation in these exams, more might have elected to go on to college.

  • College bound?
  • Posted by feudi pandola on November 14, 2008 at 8:45am EST
  • I have to question the rationale used in this study. A 2.5 GPA in high school today is simply not the same as a 2.5 was years ago. At our school, we had to increase the admission requirements because at 2.5 we were seeing college level students
    literally incapable of writing a coherent one page essay.

    I also question whether this phenomena really has much to do with ethnicity. In the real world, it is a far easier road for low income students to pay for college than it is for middle class or wealthy students in terms of out of pocket payments. A Pell grant of $4,731 along with a state grant of about $3,500 will cover full time enrollment at any community college in Pennsylvania.

    In summary, this study seems to ignore reality. It's almost like it was written twenty years ago when it may have had some validity.

  • Posted by Student Debtor on November 14, 2008 at 9:10am EST
  • I sure do wish that the financial aid people had explained to me that college is not always the best financial option! I would be a lot better off financially if I had just worked!

  • Best and Brightest
  • Posted by Betty on November 14, 2008 at 9:50am EST
  • Feudi is right. Those who are eligible for Pell Grants can afford an Associate's Degree, unless of course they have some of those other family or child-care barriers; it's the "middle" class who suffer the most. Family incomes are too high to qualify for Pell but not enough to pay for any college. I think a bigger problem is the perception that college means a big university; technical colleges are excellent preparers of skilled and well-paid workers but students, parents, and sometimes their counselors don't understand these institutions.

  • Change a L'Obama!
  • Posted by Prof Philbert Suresh , Faculty at GUST Kuwait on November 14, 2008 at 9:50am EST
  • It is grim reality indeed as how many bright minds forgo education at the college and university level that affects the future of a nation. Indeed it was fortunate that President Obama and his family benefited from the American Dream and the funds that create the brilliant future. In todays recession-ridden economy, education will become a luxury at higher levels

    An ordinary person at the normal rung of the society cannot dream of best education in the ivy league instituions in USA or elsewhere in the world. It will continue to be unatttainable dream of many..

  • Some truth, some doubt
  • Posted by Not So Sure on November 14, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • I generally agree with FP (2 posts above). Witness that just this morning, Cornell Univ. announced that not only did it last year eliminate all loans for those from families with incomes below $60K, it now is also completely eliminating the parent contribution. Nada. Zero. And no student loans either. And it is just one many, at or toward the very high end of US higher education, to offer very, very attractive aid packages, very low, or outright zero, costs to the family and or student. This type of survey-based study is so subject to problematic, partial, and misleading responses, one needs to very cautious. For example, if you ask a withdrawing student why they are leaving, almost always money is indicated as a reason, if not the first one to be mentioned. And almost always, upon deeper questioning, the real reasons are quite different, and more complex. Same thing here I would strongly suspect. first of all, the student population is hardly "the best and the brightest." Some are, but others aren't. Good sure, but not great. And their real reasons for their college choice are probably quite complex, and I strongly suspect only secondarily related to costs. Perhaps a cost-benefit perception, but not primarily, in most cases, because it is just unaffordable. I suppose whether or not the policy recommendations here are seen as good, or not, depends on the objective: if the objective is to get a few more of these student to go to college, and do so now, rather than later (which many may well do), then perhaps so. If the objective is work to undo the status quo, get more low income students into college, people for whom money really can be the issue, then no. These are decidedly not policies likely to accommodate that. The GA Hope program documentedly has not done that. It's been a help to high and higher ability kids, many of whom could have and would have gone to college without the Hope program, but it has not been a help to those in the low incomes.

  • Just stay at a CC
  • Posted by Scott on November 14, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • Feudi, let me see if I understand. Grade inflation has pushed low-income students into the pool of “college qualified”, students that apparently twenty years ago would have been appropriately denied postsecondary education. College pricing pressures are not really an issue for low-income students because they should be happy enrolling in a two-year degree program. The inability of either of the financial aid options you mention to cover, oh, say Penn. State, is of little concern to you because these students aren’t really college qualified anyway based on your sample of one – namely your personal experience. Rather then ring the all too familiar bell of middle-class angst over pricing as an excuse to relegate the less financially fortunate to AA degrees and technical programs, its seems we should find broad-based programs that address college costs across the board for all groups.

  • Posted by Jeanne Contardo at Business-Higher Education Fourm on November 14, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • Respectfully to Feudi and Betty, the challenge for low income students is that, while there may be numerous financial resources available to them in the form of Pell grants and other state and institutional aid, they are often not getting the message soon enough about these options. Low-income students-- whom we know tend to be more loan averse than middle and higher income students-- often do not know about these other financial aid options, and if they do, they may find out about them too light to postively be reflected in their academic planning for college. This isn't to say that middle income students have everything easy, but please let's not assume that poor kids have all the advantages when it comes to accessing college. The research simply doesn't support that attitude.

  • Posted by John McDonald on November 14, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • I often recommend students look at the cheaper and more local options. Yeah, leaving town to pay $30k in annual tuition isn't a good financial move for a lot of people, but when hometown community colleges or public universities offer cheap classes a student can get as much out of the opportunity as they're willing to put in through studying, taking challenging classes, etc...

    Of course the economy makes things tougher even at economical alternatives, but setting realistic financial limits can be a good long term move - especially in terms of neutralizing student debt.

  • degree timetable too long
  • Posted by MT on November 14, 2008 at 11:35am EST
  • A 2-3 year max undergrad track would help, instead of the norm of 4 -5 years - think globally- US students cannot afford to be out of the mainstream work force- and they also need more opportunities to take college courses in high school.

  • Posted by glen on November 14, 2008 at 12:00pm EST
  • "Further research is required to explain while so many college-qualified students believe that college is necessary but do not enroll or take the steps to enroll."

    These are smart kids. It would be interesting to know if their choice had anything to do with their perception of the quality and relevance of higher ed.

  • Financial Aid
  • Posted by BruceD on November 14, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • I agree with several of the commentors who pointed out that the availability of aid is not so much a problem for the low income students as it is for the middle income students. At least in Washington State, there is so much money at the low income levels that many students are getting in excess of $12k per year in grants. That equates to a full ride plus some. However, that "free" money drops precipitously once a student is beyond the range of Pell Grant eligiblity. We are seeing a definite polarization in the family incomes of our students. I have often thought, although this is not a popular idea with my collegues, that financial aid should only fund basic costs (tuition, fees, room, board, and books). All other costs (personal and transportation) should be the responsibility of the students, parents, and spouses, either through savings or employment. It wouldn't hurt some of these full-ride students to actually get a job and contribute something to their own education.

  • It goes beyond the sticker price
  • Posted by DS on November 14, 2008 at 12:35pm EST
  • Those in higher ed all know, and make known, that Pell Grants and similar state programs take care of the neediest students, even to the point where, at community colleges, many students don't even have to borrow. But the overall cost to the student goes much deeper than the tuition and fees and textbooks. There's the child care, which can be taken into account in the Financial Aid Office but would usually only result in additional loans. An even greater obstacle to many of the lowest income students are the wages that they can't earn if they're enrolled at school. I think that could be the number one reason why many choose not to enroll, and the current economic climate will only make that worse. Students may understand that education will help their earning power in the long run, but in the meantime, the rent's due and they have mouths to feed and the bus fares went up, and if they cut the hours they're working at Quickie Mart to go to school, they're stuck.

  • better ways to do this?
  • Posted by JB at Deschool U. on November 14, 2008 at 12:35pm EST
  • Perhaps this is further evidence that the apparently immutable and universal model of a four-year baccalaureate degree right after high school is becoming irrelevant. Rather than ask why these young adults are not making it onto the higher ed conveyor belt, perhaps we can ask what other models for learning could be more effective.

    US automakers have been thoroughly criticized for building the same cars year after year, while others in the industry were rethinking both the product and the process. Is it time to rethink our models of post-secondary learning?

    How would the young adults from the reported survey respond if asked: What do you need to to learn? And how could you best learn it?

  • The pendulum swings again!
  • Posted by FAO on November 14, 2008 at 1:50pm EST
  • Student debtor, why do you blame the "Financial Aid People' for not talking you out of college. I guess you need to find someone else to blame.

    Who is responsible for your future exactly?

    The FAO's job is to help students who have made the choice to go to college find the best ways to pay for it, not to talk students out of it. College is not mandated, and is still a privelage, not a right.

    Perhaps your career counselors, your peers, parents, guidance counselor, etc were not asked the right questions.

    In response to the folks who are saying that perhaps other alternatives should have been explored more thoroughly, I remember starting in Financial Aid at a time when Vo-Tech was still being pushed rather heavily, and folks who came to the FA Office whispered about it out of embaressment that someone might find out.

    While I don't see evidence that anyone whispers any longer, I do see folks starting to look at the steep price and consider the alternatives, all of the alternatives. After all Vo-tech never went away people were just baffled/dazzled by the marketing machine.

    In an economic downturn, when prices get too high people take all of their choices much more seriously.

  • Barking up the wrong tree
  • Posted by CDog on November 14, 2008 at 2:05pm EST
  • Cost is clearly the biggest barrier to entry when it comes to deciding whether or not to go to college. But coming up with creative ways to make funds available may not be the best approach. Instead, we need to look at the model in place today and figure out how to generate a faster ROI. The first step would be to replace "degrees" with specific job tracks where there is an end to justify the means. Savvy, forward thinking corporations could invest in curriculum development through partnerships with colleges which would potentially yield a pipeline of well trained employees. The calendar year also makes no sense to me. Professors may need summers off to recharge and research, but that time off does little to propel students forward. I think that the old apprenticeship model augmented with classroom learning is one solution. Imagine a scenario in which students earn their tuition during their college years and graduate with well paying jobs waiting for them. The best way to assuage students fears of being in debt is to create a model that eliminates it.

  • Posted by Student Debtor 2 on November 14, 2008 at 3:55pm EST
  • I'm going to jump on Student Debtor's bandwagon. Although I made my own choices to finish school and don't blame anyone but me for the debt that I'm in, I too would be a lot better off financially if I had never gone to college. The only thing my degrees did for me was leave me with a nice satisfaction of having earned two degrees. My higher salaries in no way offset the student loans I had to take out to pay for my education. Student loans are NOT financial aid, in my opinion. If you can get grants and scholarships - great! Use those and go for it. If you don't qualify, you may be better off skipping college.

  • A 2.5 GPA?
  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on November 14, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • At most public high schools, a GPA under 3.0 is embarrassingly low, especially when the curriculum includes honors, AP, or IB courses that are often assigned a weighting. There are serious arguments for increasing college enrollment, but describing high school students with such low achievement as our "best and brightest" in order to say that the system denies such people opportunities seems disingenuous.

  • Yeah, they coulda been brain surgeons
  • Posted by Prof. Challenger on November 14, 2008 at 5:20pm EST
  • Engineering Grad Student gets it exactly right. If I were struggling through high school with a C+ average and then didn't go to college, I'd rather blame it on the cost of college than admit that I just wasn't college material.

  • I Agree with the Student Debtors
  • Posted by Jane S. Shaw , President at John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy on November 15, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • The student debtors speak from experience. The article suggests that college counselors assume that anyone who is capable of college ought to go to college. But some of those students may be better off getting jobs and building up a nest egg, as the student debtors wish they themselves had done.

  • Value of community college
  • Posted by Uri on November 15, 2008 at 12:25pm EST
  • is the community college option really comparable to the 4-year college/university option, as some commenters appear to be suggesting? i don't meet too many people in the professional/managerial circles i travel in who relied on pell grants to go to community colleges.

    i'm not knocking community colleges - i think they're a great option for some people. but to suggest that there's no problem for poor people to access higher education because it's easy to attend community colleges ignores the social capital that you generate from going to a 4-year college or university.

  • Less Aid = Lower Costs
  • Posted by Rock on November 17, 2008 at 11:25am EST
  • The free market has been driven out of the academy. The availability of government funded grants, government backed loans, and government susidies has caused prices to inflate beyond what the market can bear. Government involvement was supposed to make it more affordable and 'accessible' for all Americans. Like any other area of government involvement, it backfired. It allowed colleges to have MORE cashflow, knowing that a guaranteed amount of cash would be there every year to cover costs. If government had stayed out the picture from the beginning, things would look much different. Here are two things for certain:
    1) Because of the lower funding, I'll admit that schools wouldn't all be as picturesque as they are today. Indeed colleges have leveraged the increased cashflow to build some amazing structures and landscape the campuses beyond anything outside of Disney.
    2) Without the government involvement, colleges would need to remain competitive from a pricing/performance perspective. The market would dictate the value and ultimately, the cost. Colleges would be operating on less-- and that's a good thing!

    Of course, with the political climate as it is, and our country's move toward socialist ideals, it's impossible to move in any direction other than MORE MORE MORE government intervention. Hopefully in the future we'll see the country move back toward market-friendly government involvement (meaning staying out of the way).

    Rock

  • college no goers
  • Posted by mike , college no goers on November 21, 2008 at 6:10am EST
  • from the people that I've known, and I've known a lot of people in my life. I think most people that don't go to college is plainly because they don't want to, school is really not their thing, or they are lazy and don't want to put effort in to it. going to college is still do able, despite the current circumstance which will hopefully get better. also, many people dig themselves in a life hole in which college becomes the last priority, but that was a personal choice.