News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
July 22, 2005
For decades, the American education system has led the world on almost every measure: The highest high school completion rate, the highest college-going rate, and the highest proportion of college educated citizens. Collectively, our colleges and universities are unparalleled, attracting students and scholars from all over the world.
But that prominence is now being challenged.
Over the past decade, the United States has slipped to 17th in the developed world in high school graduation rates, and seventh in college-entry rates. And we are no longer first in the proportion of young people completing a college degree.
Even more worrisome are the numbers for low-income students and students of color. These students are less likely to graduate from high school than their more affluent and white peers, and those who do graduate are less likely to be prepared for college or work. On top of that, low-income and minority students who go on to college are less likely to complete their degrees.
This is not acceptable. If our nation is to continue as a world leader, institutions of higher education must assume responsibility for helping every student they admit succeed. Right now, student success is not part of the way institutions of higher education — or the people who run them — are evaluated.
A college education is one of the main drivers of opportunity, social mobility and economic progress in our society. Yet far too many students who enter our higher education system fail to earn a degree.
Over all, only about 4 in 10 students who begin full time at a four-year college get a bachelor’s degree within four years and only about 6 in 10 get a degree within six years, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s Beginning Postsecondary Survey.
Completion rates are substantially lower for minority students and students from low-income families. While approximately two-thirds of white freshmen in four-year colleges obtain a degree within six years, fewer than half of African Americans and Latinos do so.
Nationally, there are 772 four-year colleges where at least 5 percent of the undergraduates are black. At roughly four in 10 of these schools, the six-year graduation rate for African American students is less than 30 percent. And at about one in five of these schools, the six-year African-American graduation rate is less than 20 percent.
Similarly, a quarter of all institutions with at least 5 percent Latino students have a Latino graduation rate of 30 percent or less. There are also significant differences in completion rates between students in terms of family income: 77 percent of students from high-income families graduate, compared to only 54 percent for students from low-income families – a 23 percentage point gap.
While these disturbing patterns — low overall graduation rates and big gaps between groups — have remained stubbornly consistent, the consequences of not graduating have changed drastically. People with a four-year degree or higher now earn much more relative to high school graduates than they did 30 years ago, and the gap increases with the level of the degree.
Our children must be educated to the highest levels, and unless we change current trends, we will become a society that is even more polarized by class and race.
Congress’s Role
The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which is under way in Congress, gives us an opportunity to help change these outcomes for students and provides lawmakers with several opportunities to promote better preparation for work, for college and for life.
Congress should first support state efforts to align the standards for exiting high school with those for beginning postsecondary study. With a relatively small investment, lawmakers could help states make sure that students don’t fall between the cracks separating high school from college, including linking their K-12 and higher education data systems.
Second, Congress should provide more money to students by committing to a five-year trajectory to recoup the buying power of Pell Grants. The financial burden of paying for college is a huge barrier for many young people. Low-income young people are particularly hard hit, because the relative value of Pell Grants has diminished by 50 percent since the late 1970s. Whereas Pell Grants used to cover 84 percent of the average fixed cost at a public, four-year institution, in 2001-02 they covered only about 40 percent of these costs.
Of course it would certainly help if more young people entered college well prepared and if they didn’t have to struggle to cover college costs, but preparation and ability to pay only tell part of the story.
That’s why Congress’ third goal should be to require states to put in place accountability systems that set stretch goals for student success for four-year colleges and universities.
How to Achieve Accountability
The traditional state role in regulating and funding higher education suggests that states are in the best position to hold institutions appropriately responsible for improving graduation rates.
States should have broad discretion in designing accountability systems that meet the needs and characteristics of their institutions, but, at a minimum, these systems should:
Too often success in higher education is measured in terms of increasing the so-called “quality” of students who are enrolled — not whether those students earn a college degree within four, five or six years. Success should take account of not just the students who get into a college, but those who get out.
What is becoming increasingly clear is the critical role institutions themselves play an in ensuring success of their students. Our recent report on this issue revealed that some institutions, year in and year out, manage to graduate significantly more of their students than other very similar institutions – even when we account for student characteristics.
To help identify unusually high-performing colleges and universities, the Education Trust created College Results Online, an interactive Web tool that allows users to select any four-year college or university in the nation, and compare its graduation rates to other similar institutions.
Some institutions stand out.
Consider Alcorn State University, a historically black college in Mississippi, At one point, Alcorn State was losing as much as 50 percent of its freshman class each year. Leaders there sent a study team to other colleges and universities around the country to find out what practices seemed to help institutions retain and promote their students. From that research emerged the College for Excellence, a concentrated two-year program that freshmen and sophomores must complete before being admitted to a major program.
The university has also worked to increase the quality of remedial instruction for students who enroll needing additional skills to be ready for college-level work.
Now, Alcorn State’s first-year retention rate has increased to almost 75 percent and its six-year graduation rate is better than the median of its peer institutions by about 10 percentage points.
Florida State University also is doing something right. It is a large public research institution with tens of thousands of undergraduates, nearly 12 percent of whom are African American. But unlike most such universities, only a few percentage points separate the success rates for white students and students of color. The 2003 six-year graduation rate for African-American and white students was 61.3 percent and 63.9 percent respectively.
The university makes a serious and coordinated effort to engage students: Advisers at Florida State are expected to contact every student at least three times a semester, and you’ll find advisers where the students are – in residence halls, the library and the student union. Many low-income and first-generation students also enroll in a seven-week summer program before their first semester to help ease the transition to college.
The results at these institutions demonstrate that colleges and universities play an enormous role in securing success for their students. Given the huge number of students who each year start college but never finish, it is vitally important that states and systems of higher education see increasing student success as a responsibility, not a choice. Real change to the Higher Education Act can help make that happen.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
I agree it’s not the college or instructor’s fault. There are remedies for the problem of too few students graduating college: 1) Allow high school students to take college credits during the summer months in intro classes. This gives them a jump start and entry to college life. 2) Start scheduling high school classes the same as college classes are scheduled. We are still scheduling courses the same way as 30 years ago. The U.S. has changed. There are more people working and working 2-3 jobs to survive. There are more single parent homes.3) Make a college education relevant. Frankly, I don’t care if it’s a college education or a career/voc ed education. But our students need upgraded skills beyond high school.
Anonymous in Chicago, CCC, at 7:59 am EDT on July 22, 2005
I believe a study will show that graduation rates are linked to admission standards. Schools with high admission standards also have high graduation rates. Schools with low admission standards may also have high graduation rates, but only if there has been large grade inflation. If the faculty insists on high performance for graduation, then low admission standards will lead to low graduation rates.
In my university we have largely maintained graduation standards, but have low admission requirements, which lately have not even been adhered to in an attempt to increase enrollment to offset decreases in state funding. Consequently, our graduation rates are suffering as freshman English, Math, and Science flunk out students who really don’t belong in college. Those courses have taken the place of admission requirements. Is this progress?
Hans Gesund, at 9:13 am EDT on July 22, 2005
What this article proposes is simply continuing at the university level what is working so well (not) at the high school level — a fixation on “completion” as the measure of value.
If education must be life-long, then why fixate on whether students cross an arbitrary finish line or do so in a fixed period? A mania for “improving” graduation rates will simply lead to improved graduation rates — regardless of actual education imparted — much as the mania for higher standardized test scores has led to higher scores and less learning.
I further suggest that the whole premise of the article — that higher graduation rates makes a nation more “competitive” and succesful — is simply unexamined nonsense, the received wisdom of the intelligentsia. The programs that produce graduates whose numbers are actually correlated with national wealth and improved physical wellbeing (engineering, agriculture, physical sciences) should be praised for holding fast to meaningful standards that ensure that possession of a degree signifies the attainment of basic professional skills and abilities. However, graduation rates of the vast majority of undergraduates in most other fields cannot be shown to have any bearing on anything other than employment for academics in those fields.
Education is a craft, best practiced on the scale of a craft, with close contact between teachers and students. American higher education, on the other hand, is a fantastically bloated industrial-scale enterprise that reflects a cargo-cult type confusion about causes and effects (as we got richer we produced more graduates, ergo if we produce more graduates we’ll get richer still, even if it means herding millions of people who have no business or real interest in being in higher ed into it).
As documented in a number of places such as “The Party’s Over” we are coming to the end of the sea of cheap oil and natural gas to which America is addicted. This means that the American economy is about to crater to an extent inconceivable to anyone not conversant with the Great Depression — which means we will soon see industrial-scale educational enterprises collapsing left and right. Graduation rates will, however, soar — because we will, in the next few decades, see higher ed return to a much, much smaller-scale enterprise.
In the end, the only schools that matter today are those who can figure out how to equip students to live in a radically altered future in which feeding yourself will again be job one for most people, and learning how to do that will be job one for young people. For many (most?) academics, it will feel like China’s Cultural Revolution — only permanent, and it won’t be a psychotic cultural convulsion forcing the grad students into the fields. Instead, it will be the fact that, today, virtually 100% of America’s food depends on petrochemicals, from the very first fertilizers to the last trip to market some 1500 miles from the field (over even further for food from overseas). When those petrochemicals and fuels go into permanent (and increasingly severe) shortage, so will food and all the other comforts of the Oil Age.
So cheer up — grad rates will soon climb; just don’t count on that to do anything good for the economy of the nation or the wellbeing of the credentialed graduates.
If I could give young people who are thinking about submitting to higher education one piece of advice it would be this: “Figure out how to be a successful farmer with little or no off-farm inputs or to be someone who is essential to such farmers.” Before long, that will be the sine qua non of a successful young person. That’s the rate that matters right now.
JMG, Bamboozled by statistics, at 9:30 am EDT on July 22, 2005
Contributing to protracted time students take to complete Associate and Bachelor degrees is the rise in costs they must meet. Student fees (tuition) and book prices rapidly increase, along with skyrocketing expenses of daily living, especially in major urban areas of California and beyond. With the cost of pursuing education—even at California’s “affordable commmunity colleges"—rising drastically, students spend more time working to meet costs, while having less time to pursue their coursework. Not having enough time to study, while working one or more jobs full time, affects the quality of their academic performance and their matriculation patterns.
The increase in student fees is a disguised tax increase. The no-tax-increase political mantras adversely affect public higher education in many ways, not the least of which are the diminution of the students’ prospects for focusing on their studies with minimal distraction and lower overall matriculation rates when students overextend themselves, while trying to make ends meet.
Jonathan McLeod, San Diego Mesa College, at 1:58 pm EDT on July 22, 2005
While our public education system continues to add great value, it has not kept up with the needs of it’s student base. In 1970 28% of students where part-time, today it is 39%, community colleges served 31% of the undegraduate population in 1970, today they serve 46%. Minority representation today is over 37%, up from 19% in 1976.
The traditional education system, is not focused on serving this growing “non-traditional” student base.
Fortunately careers colleges understand such students and provide greater outcomes to such students. According to the Career College Association 2005 Fact Book, while career colleges serve approximately 7% of all students, they confer approximately 39% of all health degrees/certificates and 35% of all technology degrees/certificates awarded at 2-year and less institutions in the U.S.
In my opinion the public university system is overbudened and (in some cases) more concerned about brand than delivering what students need to suceed in the workforce. I have found the following article of interest on this topic:http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/EmptyPromisesRosenbaum.pdf
Edward P. Meehan, Rittenhouse Capital Partners, at 1:43 pm EDT on July 26, 2005
Edward: I will read the Rosenbuam article. Here is another popular article by him I have found helpful:
American Educator — Spring 2004
It’s Time To Tell the Kids: If You Don’t Do Well in High School, You Won’t Do Well in College (or on the Job)By James E. Rosenbaum
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/a...n_educator/issues/spring04/index.htm
I also highly recommend his book:
Beyond College For All: Career Paths For The Forgotten Half (American Sociological Association Rose Series in Sociology)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos...=pd_bbs_b_ur_2_1/103-9789147-1335800
I have many students in my engineering calculus courses that really should learn a trade. (Or maybe they should organize a unionat the mall store where they work. Industry is using “get a degree” as a dodge for frustrated low wage service workers.)
Jonathan: You raise a good point about cost. By why have costs gone up for students? It maybe that as more and more students go to college, states have to cut per student subsidies. State spending on higher ed goes up even as state spending per student goes down. And why are textbook prices so high? Because publishers are fighting against the used book market by frequently changing editions. But why would students questing after knowledge turn around and sell their books? Too many students are in 4-year colleges for the wrong reasons. It would be interesting to know if class sizes have gone up. Surely the number of classes taught by term faculty and grad students has gone way up. For some regional state universities the main reason they have graduate programs is to get cheap labor. Admitting so many weak students makes it harder to give the well prepared ones the education they deserve.
JMG: Fear not! When the oil runs out we will go back to coal. Admission standards will go up so more young people will enter the coal mines — those who survived the oil wars that is. (I am being sarcastic here. Take this with a grain of salt.)
Mike, Math Prof, at 4:28 am EDT on July 29, 2005
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Job Summary Roosevelt University invites applications for a tenure-track assistant professor with a PhD in ... see job
The Department of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine invites applications for a faculty ... see job
BSC is one of the largest and most exciting centers for higher education in the commonwealth. Here in our idyllic setting, ... see job
Job Description: In collaboration with and under the direction of the Division Dean, assists, manages, and ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
The Department of Chemistry and Physics at Western Carolina University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty ... see job
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
HCC is seeking to create a pool for positions in digital media. There is an opening in the Spring Semester for a Monday class ... see job
Job Description: Ithaca College’s Department of Speech Communication invites applications for a ... see job
The Decline in Timely Graduation May Not be Our Fault
I would agree with Haycock’s basic argument that much more needs to be done by college faculties and college administrators to help students graduate in a timely way. At the same time, I think the main emphasis of the argument is wrong-headed. One of the biggest problems I face as a teacher of first- and second-year students is their near-complete lack of preparation for college. And that is a problem generated by local school boards, not colleges. Yes, colleges have much that we should answer for. But in this case we may not necessarily be the ones at fault.
The local school boards in my area of the country have adopted something called a block system of education. This system encourages senior high schools to fit three times the number of students into the capacity of the high school building. So, if a senior high school building could house only 1000 students, for example, the block system would fit 3000. How?
Some students do not need to attend classes every day. Other students do not go to classes until noon and stay only until 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. Still other students do not need to attend classes during their entire spring semesters. In this way, senior high schools can accommodate more and more students and thereby increase revenues. In the long run, it benefits the high school and the school board economically. At the same time, however, it turns senior high schools into glorified day care centers with revolving doors.
The block system short-changes students and makes the job of college faculties and administrators that much more difficult. Imagine trying to teach college English or speech classes to students who have forgotten how to formulate a good thesis because they have not attended classes in over eight months. Or imagine trying to teach math or science to students who are trying to cope with a full-week schedule when they are used to their high school systems, in which they only went to classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays for three hours per day.
The cases that Haycock cites in her piece — in Mississippi and Florida — may be successes. But perhaps the reason they have succeeded is because the senior high schools in their areas have chosen more wisely than the senior high schools in my neck of the woods. Yes, I SHOULD become a better teacher and I SHOULD do more for each student who passes through the portal of my classroom. But I CAN’T do either on a large scale until someone prohibits local school boards from putting economics above the need to educate.
As someone who only teaches first- and second-year students, I would not want Congress to place strictures and guidelines on me without also requiring high school teachers and administrators to get back to the business of teaching. Without putting a limit on local school boards’ abilities to deny college-bound seniors an education, doing what Haycock suggests would not stop the bells from tolling for education in America. It would put yet another nail in education’s coffin.
Alfred G. Mueller II, Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State Mont Alto, at 6:55 am EDT on July 22, 2005