Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Dent in the Data

December 22, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For anyone looking for signs of the decline of American higher education, the annual statistics published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have become a standard building block to make that case. The data -- particularly those showing the comparative rate of educational attainment by 25- to 34-year-olds in the U.S and elsewhere -- are regularly cited to show the nation's failure to keep pace as other developed nations that long trailed the U.S. ramp up their higher ed systems.

As the OECD numbers have gained currency, some researchers and statisticians have warned against overdependence on them, citing questions about the international agency's methodology. At the same time, American college leaders, recognizing that the data are being used widely, have been digging into the numbers to try to understand them better and, where possible, look for ways to learn from what they say about the United States and its peers/competitors.

It was in one such quest that researchers at the American Council on Education, higher ed's chief coordinating group, discovered that the OECD's latest data contain a significant error in the U.S. attainment numbers, and perhaps those of other countries as well. OECD officials have acknowledged the problem in the American statistics and expressed concern about others as well.

And while the errors don't radically alter the picture of potential problems in the educational attainment among younger U.S. citizens, they do point to the dangers of overdependence on any single source of data to make sweeping, and potentially oversimplified, generalizations about public policy matters.

The numbers in question, which examine the proportion of citizens of various countries that have received a "tertiary" (or postsecondary, in U.S. parlance) credential, have been widely cited in the increasingly common critiques of the United States' ability to produce enough educated citizens to compete in the global economy. Margaret Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher Education leaned heavily on the OECD data, as have more recent reports like “Measuring Up 2008” and the College Board’s “Coming to Our Senses.”

The data most commonly cited to show the decline of the U.S. higher education system examine the rates at which citizens of different age groups in different countries attain a postsecondary degree of some kind. The United States has long been among the world's leaders in ensuring access to higher education for its people, and the country still fares well in rankings for older citizens. But the OECD's 2008 data (which cover outcomes from 2006) for the proportion of 25- to 34-year-olds who have a postsecondary (or tertiary) degree show the U.S. falling to 10th among the 30 OECD countries, with 39 percent of citizens that age having some kind of degree.

Jacqueline E. King, assistant vice president at the American Council on Education's Center for Policy Analysis, is among the higher education researchers who have been digging into the OECD numbers to try to understand them better; among other things, she noted, ACE is preparing to undertake a study looking at how Canada has managed to give such a large proportion of its citizens "sub-baccalaureate" degrees, a category in which it ranks tops in the OECD statistics.

It was in analyzing the OECD numbers that King and her staff noticed that they showed the U.S. as having dropped to 19th, from 10th in 2005, in the proportion of citizens with a sub-baccalaureate (or, in the United States' case, associate) degrees. The steep decline, from 9 percent to 5 percent of citizens, was accompanied in the OECD data by an equally sharp (and equally unlikely) rise in the proportion of Americans with a baccalaureate degree, to 35 from 30 percent, and to 2nd place from 6th place. (A spreadsheet comparing the 2006 and 2005 numbers in various categories can be found here.)

After ACE officials brought the issue to the attention of OECD, the international group admitted that its researchers had "mistakenly categorized those academic associate degrees" as baccalaureate degrees, King said. In an interview Friday, Michael Davidson, a senior analyst in OECD's education directorate, acknowledged that a "mistake was made" in the mapping of U.S. programs to international classifications, and said that OECD was at work correcting the data.

As ACE officials dug further into the numbers, they noticed several other apparent discrepancies, as well. The OECD data for 2008 show New Zealand, for example, increasing the proportion of its 25- to 34-year-old citizens with sub-baccalaureate degrees to 14 from 5 percent, and the proportion of people in that age group with baccalaureate degrees to 30 from 26 percent. Over all, New Zealand shot up to 4th in postsecondary attainment in that age group in 2006, from 18th in 2005.

Several other countries showed multiple point changes between 2005 and 2006, which Davidson said in the interview Friday would be surprising under normal circumstances, given how difficult it is to achieve significant movement quickly in most countries. He said the OECD would review the data for other countries to ensure that the "glitch" that occurred in the United States numbers was not replicated for other nations.

King, of ACE, said her organization was not questioning the OECD numbers to try to pretend that there are not serious issues in postsecondary attainment in the United States, or to soft-pedal the extent of the problem. But these data "have gained a lot of currency," she said, and "you need to unpack [them] if you're really going to understand U.S. performance compared to other countries. We need to make sure the data are right so we in the analytical community can figure out what the differences really are, and work on how to improve what we're doing."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Dent in the Data

  • Comparing International Apples to Apples, Educationally Speaking
  • Posted by Gail Mellow on December 22, 2008 at 7:15am EST
  • As someone who has been relying on the OECD data, I want to publicly commend the American Council on Education’s careful examination of these data. Making international comparisons about the relative attainment of higher education degrees is both critical and difficult in a world where there is little commonality in terminology.

    I have just returned from Chile, helping the Universidad Central lay the ground work for that country’s first community college. In meeting with the Chilean Minister of Education, it was very difficult for her to appreciate how the proposed institution of higher education differed from Chile’s post-secondary vocational technical institutes, which are post-secondary in time but educationally much closer to an American voc-tech high school.

    Jacqui King’s thoughtfulness and thoroughness in this endeavor are much appreciated. I hope ACE will consider international work that would provide an agreed upon terminology for “apples to apples” comparisons.

    Gail Mellow
    President, LaGuardia Community College, City University of New York

  • Dents or No Dents, Story Is the Same
  • Posted by Travis Reindl , State Policy and Campaigns Director at CommunicationWorks, LLC on December 22, 2008 at 8:15am EST
  • Like Gail, I applaud ACE for working to correct the flaws in the OECD analysis. I hope, however, that certain researchers and leaders in the higher education community do not use this as an excuse to gratuitously bash the individuals and organizations that use these data to make the valid point that the United States is headed for trouble in producing human capital. There is plenty of evidence, even without the OECD data, to support that argument.

    It will be a sad commentary on the state of American higher education if we further delay serious conversations about needed reforms while we fight over methodologies and misplaced decimal points.

  • Where language makes a big difference
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman , Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Policy on December 22, 2008 at 8:45am EST
  • Well, I wrote about this for Inside HigherEd last week (as you note), but from a different angle, and a key piece of it needs articulation: if we, in the U.S., are going to improve our understanding of international comparative data---on anything---we have to read the statistical reports of other countries, on-line and printed, in the languages in which they are written.

    That is the key to the Institute for Higher Education Policy's current project on Global Performance, Part 2 (Part 1 is the Bologna Process and its lessons for the U.S.). Just to offer some evidence of what this means, after my column appeared last week, I spent 7 solid hours with a Dutch translator going through a set of documents, e-mail correspondence with statistics personnel at the Dutch Ministry of Education and Science, and on-line at both the Ministry and Dutch Statistical Agency Web sites, reading tables, noting how populations were defined, noting where the Ministry and the Central Bureau of Statistics disagreed, etc. Then following up with three solid days at home, back on the Web sites, with an on-line Dutch dictionary, just to get some basic notes down, with citations.

    The same process is being followed with Germany, Portugal, Sweden, and France (with occasional use of Italian, Spanish, and Polish data--let alone English language materials from the UK, Canada, Ireland, and Australia). Our purpose is different from what ACE did, as we're ultimately looking for ways to make these data more enlightening without resorting to OECD's population ratios (which have considerable problems beyond those that ACE pointed out).

    I'm not going to spill the beans here on what examination of Netherlands data in Dutch revealed (our report will be out in the Spring, and it's obviously a big job), but the point should be underscored: you cannot do this in a wholly English language environment. The ways enrollments, entering students, types of "inflow," credentials, time enrolled, stop-out and drop-out, etc. are defined and reported (who is counted, who is not counted)---and when they are reported--are absolutely critical to getting a straight story. And without a straight story, all we have seen, as ACE's work endorses, is the propaganda of bad numbers.

  • Cliff Adelman rocks
  • Posted by MC , Research Analyst on December 22, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • I continue to be amazed at the shrewdness with with Dr. Adelman pursues his work. With all seriousness, I consider him to be a rock star in my field. Thanks for your comments, Dr. Adelman.

  • Netherlands 4th ... United States 25th
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley , PhD in Mathematical Statistics on December 22, 2008 at 1:30pm EST
  • I suppose it is important to myriad higher education specialists in the United States to be able to compare gross measures of the educational achievement of students in our fair land with “comparable” measures of educational achievement of the populace of other countries. Whenever I have seen such data “used,” it is invariably for the rather mindless purpose of wishing to exclaim “Omigod, the science and mathematics knowledge of American students is so woefully awful, it’s no wonder our reputation as a world economic power is in decline” ... or something along those lines.

    Shamefully, even in InsideHigherEd, I have used data on the order of these ...

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

    to make such a point (but leave out the part about being an economic power).

    What is much more important (to me), however, is the fact that the mathematical (and scientific) knowledge of “educated” citizens of the United States is so abysmally low in comparison to reasonable standards, not in comparison to what it may be in other countries; and, as far as my experience interacting with college students for more than 50 years is concerned, any reasonable measure of that will have a pronounced negative slope.

    P.S. About Statistics: There are times when confirmatory and exploratory statistical analyses of data are useful, and I agree with those above who have essentially suggested that statistical analyses, when used as a basis for understanding various phenomena, should be employed carefully, accurately, and comprehensively. I think, however, my reactions to upwards of 80% of the statistical analyses I encounter are (1) “And you think those data have any bearing on the theory in question?” or (2) “Good grief, whoever imagined that was an accurate and thoughtful application of statistics to analysis of that phenomena?” or (3) “Why would anyone imagine that is an important issue on which to spend even 15 minutes of one’s time?” or (4) “Pray tell, who didn’t already know that ... and independent of how much half-baked statistical analysis one throws at the issue?”

  • Wondering
  • Posted by David Davis-Van Atta at Vassar College on December 22, 2008 at 3:00pm EST
  • I have not had a great deal of experience directly working with data regarding international education. However, I've heard about some studies of course, I have seen some presented, even seen some of the underlying data. One of primary take-away's from these experiences is this: it is a very complex topic, rife with incompatible data, and so quite difficult to know that one really has something that's meaningful, accurate, and honestly informative at the end. Heck, just look how difficult it is to really pick apart the questions concerning (say) graduation rates strictly in the U.S. (Different sectors of higher ed, the role of athletics, if any, stop outs, transfer outs, 2-year degree programs, etc., etc.) Our own data may be as difficult to work with to say nothing of those of another nation. And when we try to combine them, well, as the phrase goes, interpret with caution. I've always been a least a bit doubtful about international comparisons. I'll be just a bit more so now.

    Issues international aside except as they might bear (accurately only please) on the central question as I see things at this point, here is that question: what evidence do we really have, evidence that would stand the tests of being just decent science, what specifically is the evidence that US baccalaureate higher education is not doing a good job of education? Is there genuine such evidence that would pass the basic tests of good science (e.g., replicability of results, general research community agreement that the experiments from design to data to analysis are not seriously flawed, etc.)? IS there? If so, exactly what is it? Citations please if so. We know just how really difficult the assessment nut is to crack. Anyone who has tried to do so, tried to really measure educational outcomes well, to say nothing of reliably measuring value added during a four-year BA program, can attest this. So, if we really don't have even this much, just what then is the evidence that US higher ed is not doing a good job of BA-level education, for those who earn such degrees?

    If there is evidence, based on good data, good science, I'm very interested and will accord it the full respect it deserves. I just am not sure that there really is good science that demonstrates this using sound, research-based, replicable, consistent, generally understood and accepted data.

  • Comparative Higher Education
  • Posted by Norman A. Stahl at NIU on December 29, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • It is rather interesting to watch the higher education community jump on the issue of comparative research now that the "productivity" (for want of a better word) of US postsecondary institutions is being called into question. The higher education community has been part of a larger problem has it has smugly looked down from its Ivy Tower as politicos, think tank bandits, special interest professional organizations and higher education nay sayers have misused (more likely misunderstood) cross-national research data from studies such as PISA, PIRLS, TIMMS, and their predecessors for their own political, pedagogical, and even financial benefits.

    The K-12 pedagogical community has regularly been attacked by those who have generally misread the reports (if they actually critically read the reports at all) issued by the various international sponsors of the cross-national comparisons. The irony is that members of higher education circles often are in the middle of the uninformed, misinformed or even ignorant (select your favorite term) mob attacking the K-12 environment based on such reports.

    There is so much to be learned from the cross-international studies. But, as is demonstrated by this week's piece and also Cliff Adelman's from the previous week (the field of pedagogy needs ten more Cliff Adelmans), there is a certain degree of knowledge and skill necessary to fully understand the actual reports. Indeed, I'd wager that the percent of higher education leaders across the land who have taken a course, attended a conference, or even read an article (before this month) on higher education comparative study (or simply comparative education for that matter) is embarrassingly small.

    Read the works by Noah, by Phillips, and by Wolf among others on the appropriate uses and misuses of comparative investigations.

    There is a rich history of comparative study spanning the centuries. It is time for the US higher education community as a whole to move beyond its ethnocentric if not xenophobic behaviors when it comes to higher education policy and pedagogy.