Higher Education Quick Takes

Quick Takes

January 17, 2019

The relationship between student loan debt and home ownership is complex, according to a new report from the Federal Reserve. Previous reports from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have found mixed evidence of the impact of student loan debt on the likelihood of whether the borrower will buy a home. While student loan payments may reduce the borrower's ability to save for a down payment or to qualify for a mortgage, investment in higher education tends to result in higher earnings and a smaller chance of unemployment, which means a better chance of being able to buy a home.

The new analysis from the Fed's headquarters -- the first in a series aimed at consumers -- attempts to isolate the negative effect of increased student loan burdens on home ownership from the potential positive effects of attending college. The home ownership rate in the U.S. has fallen by about four percentage points in the recession's wake, according to the Fed, with an even larger drop of nine points among heads of households who are 24 to 32 years old.

The new analysis finds that student loan debt does indeed decrease the odds of home ownership, with each $1,000 increase in debt causing a one- to two-percentage-point drop in the home-ownership rate of student loan borrowers during their late 20s and early 30s. Likewise, the Fed found that the aggregate increase in student loan debt from 2005 to 2014 reduced the national home-ownership rate among young adults by two percentage points. That means 20 percent of the overall decline in home ownership among young Americans can be attributed to student debt, the Fed found.

The analysis also said increased debt levels cause borrowers to be more likely to default on their student loans, which has a major adverse effect on credit scores and their ability to qualify for a mortgage.

"While investing in postsecondary education continues to yield, on average, positive and substantial returns, burdensome student loan debt levels may be lessening these benefits," the analysis concluded. "As policymakers evaluate ways to aid student borrowers, they may wish to consider policies that reduce the cost of tuition, such as greater state government investment in public institutions, and ease the burden of student loan payments, such as more expansive use of income-driven repayment."

January 17, 2019

Employers want college graduates who have “soft skills,” such as being a good listener or thinking critically, but they have difficulty finding such candidates, according to a new report.

The survey was conducted online in September by Morning Consult for Cengage, an educational technology and services company, among more than 500 hiring managers and 150 more human resources professionals. More than 1,500 current and former college students from two- and four-year institutions were also surveyed.

The companies found that the most in-demand talent among employers was listening skills -- 74 percent of employers indicated this was a skill they valued. This was followed by attention to detail (70 percent) and effective communication (69 percent).

About 73 percent of the employers said that finding qualified candidates was somewhat or very difficult. Roughly one-third of the employers (34 percent) indicated colleges and universities have not prepared students for jobs.

The students reported finding jobs was challenging. About 65 percent of the students said getting a job is more difficult for them than for their parents’ generation. About 77 percent also expressed concerns about whether they had the skills needed for a job.

“There is a need for more soft skills training, both in college and on the job, and today’s learners and graduates must continue to hone their skills to stay ahead,” Michael Hansen, chief executive officer of Cengage, said in a statement. “The onus is on everyone -- students, colleges, employers and industry partners like Cengage -- to make learning more accessible, relevant and affordable.”

January 17, 2019

The University of Liverpool was accused of racism after it sent an email to international students saying that Chinese students usually don’t know the word for “cheating” in English, the BBC reported.

The email, sent by Liverpool’s international advice and guidance team, stated that “a number of international students breach the rules” and goes on to specifically reference Chinese students. The email stated that students from China “are usually unfamiliar with the word ‘cheating’ in English” and provided a Chinese translation.

Liverpool’s vice chancellor, Janet Beer, apologized for the email. “This was a mistake, and is not representative of the high regard in which the university holds its Chinese students,” she wrote in a message posted on Liverpool’s Facebook page.

January 17, 2019

Today on the Academic Minute, Michael Grabowski, associate professor of communication at Manhattan College, determines why horror movies can be so effective at scaring us. Learn more about the Academic Minute here.

January 16, 2019

Michigan State University's board has scheduled a special meeting Thursday morning to discuss "a personnel matter" amid growing calls for the ouster of John Engler as interim president.

Engler has been under increasing criticism for comments he made about some of the scores of victims of Larry Nassar, the former university employee now in jail for abusing them. In an interview with The Detroit News, he contrasted those who have received public attention with those who have not. "You’ve got people, they are hanging on and this has been … There are a lot of people who are touched by this, survivors who haven’t been in the spotlight," he said. "In some ways they have been able to deal with this better than the ones who’ve been in the spotlight who are still enjoying that moment at times, you know, the awards and recognition. And it’s ending. It’s almost done."

Michigan State declined to comment when Inside Higher Ed asked if Engler had any response to those angered by his remarks. This was not the first time Engler has been in the news for controversial remarks.

One trustee, Brian Mosallam, told The Detroit News, "I have watched Engler not only interact with our courageous survivors but our faculty, employees and students as well. He's not only a bully, he is a mean-spirited human being. His time is up."

Another trustee, Joel Ferguson, said, "We’re better off looking for a new president right now and having less controversy and less drama as possible. We just have to put our best face forward."

Mosallam told The Detroit Free Press, "John Engler's reign of terror is over. Michigan State University will be returned to its people."

January 16, 2019

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from adding a question on U.S. citizenship to the 2020 Census, ruling that the plan was based on Republican political goals, not the laws governing the process of collecting data on people who live in the United States.

Many social science organizations have opposed the Trump administration's plans, saying that they would lead to smaller (and thus inaccurate) counts of people in states or localities with large immigrant populations. Others have noted that the new question was going to be added without testing to identify problems, even though past changes have been tested before being adopted.

January 16, 2019

A study published by researchers at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health found that graduates from for-profit nursing programs were more likely to fail the National Council Licensure Examination on the first try compared to their peers from public and nonprofit institutions.

"Students who fail can try again but they cannot get an entry-level nursing job until they pass the test," Patricia Pittman, the lead study author and a professor of health policy and management at Milken, said in a news release.

The researchers gathered data on first-time nursing exam pass rates and sorted them by degree and ownership status from 2011 through 2015. They found that, on average, public programs had an 88 percent first-time pass rate, nonprofits had 84 percent and for-profits had 68 percent.

“Many states and accreditation agencies consider an NCLEX pass rate of at least 80 percent as a minimum quality threshold for nursing programs,” Pittman said. “Our study found that for-profit nursing programs were nearly twice as likely to have failed to meet that 80 percent threshold as compared to public programs.”

January 16, 2019

New York governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed increasing regulations on for-profit institutions as part of his 2019-20 budget plan.

Under his proposal released Tuesday, for-profit colleges would be required to regularly report their funding sources to the state and would not be allowed to operate with more than 80 percent of their funding from taxpayers. (The federal government caps taxpayer funding of for-profit colleges at 90 percent.)

Each for-profit institution would also be required to spend at least 50 percent of its budget on instruction and learning, and report the salaries and bonuses received by presidents and senior leadership.

The proposal would also prohibit leaders of the colleges from serving on boards of accreditation agencies.

In his 2020 budget book, Cuomo said the state would step in to protect student loan borrowers in the "absence of federal leadership."

The Association of Proprietary Colleges, which represents for-profit colleges in New York, criticized the governor's move.

"We are disappointed Governor Andrew Cuomo delivered remarks today in which he underscored New York’s commitment to choice and opportunity, while advancing a budget proposal that is unfairly punitive to our New York-based, degree-granting colleges that are committed to educational excellence, access and affordability," the association said in a statement.

The association said the proposed requirements would hurt the very people Cuomo often embraces -- first-generation college students, immigrants, women and middle-class families -- by limiting their education choices.

The governor's office estimates 33,000 students in New York attend degree-granting for-profit colleges and 180,000 attend non-degree-granting institutions.

January 16, 2019

A new report by the Vera Institute of Justice and Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality that examined the economic benefits of educating incarcerated people recommends lifting the ban on providing federal financial aid to inmates.

"While it is just one component of a policy framework to improve people's chances post-release, restoring Pell Grant access to people in prison and rebuilding and expanding postsecondary education programs in prisons would yield far-reaching economic benefits," the report states. "Formerly incarcerated people who re-enter the labor market with greater levels of education are more likely to find employment and less likely to return to prison, potentially improving social and economic outcomes for their communities, families and themselves while leading to significant savings to states."

The report, which was released today, found that 58 percent of prison inmates don't complete an education program while in prison, while 64 percent of prisoners are academically eligible to enroll in a college prison program. But only 9 percent of inmates complete a college prison program. The Second Chance Pell program, a pilot program of the U.S. Department of Education, serves 12,000 inmates a year nationally. But if the ban on federal financial aid for inmates were lifted, about 463,000 prisoners would be eligible for a Pell Grant.

Employment rates for former inmates also increase by nearly 10 percent, on average, after they participate in a college program, according to the report. The combined wages earned by all formerly incarcerated people would increase by about $45.3 million during their first year back in their communities.

Expanding access to college prison programs could also reduce state prison spending. The report found that incarceration costs across states would decrease by $365.8 million a year because recidivism rates would likely decrease.

January 16, 2019

In the U.S. higher education system, the so-called regulatory triad of the Education Department, accreditors and the states decide what institutions qualify to receive federal student aid. But the department didn’t reserve a seat for states in a negotiated rule-making process that began Tuesday, which could significantly overhaul the rules governing college accreditors.

A debate between negotiators reached an impasse on its first day over how many state representatives to add to the process. Christopher Madaio, an assistant attorney general from the Maryland attorney general’s office, and David Tandberg, vice president of policy research and strategic initiatives at State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, both asked for spots on the panel of negotiators.

In negotiated rule making, representatives from a broad range of interest groups are asked to reach consensus on changes to federal regulations. But college representatives opposed the addition of a seat for state attorneys general.

“I think it would be very desirable to have a state voice [in] the deliberations,” said Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education. “I am not sure that the state attorneys general are that voice, because they do not authorize the institutions.”

Ernest McNealy, president of Allen University, said lawsuits filed by the Maryland attorney general’s office against colleges in the state could create conflicts in the process.

But Robyn Smith, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and another negotiator, said the process would benefit from the inclusion of an attorney general slot as well as a seat for state higher ed agencies.

“Yes, there are conflicts,” she said. “That is inherent in this process.”

Pages

Back to Top