Skip to main content

The President's Agenda for College Completion and One Little Problem

Many of you know about President Obama's call for the US to lead the world by 2020 in the percentage of citizens with college degrees.  It's a noble challenge to the country: We were first as recently as 1990, but we currently rank 12th.

And of course, it's not just a challenge to students: It's one to colleges and universities to improve access and to improve college completion among enrolled students via a wide ranging series of measures.

I had earlier tweeted that there was one small problem with this: That if we want to improve that rate by 2020, we're going to have to invent a time machine, go back 10 years, and spend more on pre-K and elementary education, which have frequently (but admittedly not definitively, for those who want to argue everything) to be the best investment in education.  Kids who don't do well in school early have greater struggles farther on, and the dream of college is even less likely. (Of course, doing well in early grade school does not ensure college readiness, either.)

And then we have the issue of paying for college, once a student qualifies for admission.  We know that Pell Grants have not kept pace with college costs, and we also know that college costs have risen too fast.  (Note: I include this Pell Grant chart for its information only; the visual suggests just the opposite of reality, in what can only be called one of the worst charts ever.)

One problem: We're pretty much going backwards on something as simple as free and reduced lunches. Take a look at the map below, and pull the slider from 2000 to 2011.  If we have more students from families who can't afford school lunch; rising college costs; and decreased federal support, it's going to be tough to get more kids to college.

Note: The qualifications for reduced for free lunches are not perfectly static, of course.  Here is the data over time.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients

Here's a little data for you: 61 years of it, to be precise.  The National Science Foundation publishes its data on US doctoral recipients sliced a variety of ways, including some non-restricted public use files that are aggregated at a high level to protect privacy. The interface is a little quirky, and if you're doing large sets, you need to break it into pieces (this was three extracts of about 20 years each), but it may be worth your time to dive in. I merged the data set with my mega table of IPEDS data, which allows you to look at institutions on a more granular level:  It's not surprising to find that University of Washington graduates have earned more degrees than graduates of Whitman College, for instance.  So, you can filter the data by Carnegie type, region or state, or control, for instance; or you can look at all 61 years, or any range of years between 1958 and 2018 and combine it with broad or specific academic fields using the controls. High school and indep

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in