Leveling the Playing Field in College Admissions

Recent news of wealthy parents allegedly paying bribes to get their children into elite colleges has raised a lot of questions about the college admissions process. While fewer than 100 students were involved—out of more than 1 million new college freshmen every year—the scandal brings up larger issues of equitable college access and high income inequality in California.

More than half of Californians (53%) say qualified students from low-income families have less opportunity than other students to get a college education, according to a 2018 PPIC survey. Even without resorting to bribery, there are many advantages that students from high-income families have in college admissions, including living in safer neighborhoods, attending better high schools, and having more help preparing for the application process (e.g., paying for SAT or ACT prep courses). Admission practices at most private colleges also favor students who can pay the full price of attending.

Our recent report on economic mobility and higher education highlights the challenges facing low-income students in California—but also offers some hope. Although recent high school graduates from low-income families are less likely to enroll in college than students from higher-income families, a greater percentage of low-income students go to college in California (67%) compared to other states (58%). Enrollment gaps between low- and high-income students in California (21 percentage points) are also substantially lower than in the rest of the country (31 percentage points).

Figure 1: College Access is Lower For Low-Income Students--But Better in California Than In the Rest of the US

California’s large public higher education system is key to ensuring broad access. The University of California (UC) enrolls more low-income students than any other public research university system in the country. Indeed, applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds are given extra consideration in UC’s “holistic review” process. Thirty-eight percent of UC undergraduates in 2016–17 received Pell grants (federal grants to low-income students), compared to 26% of undergraduates at public research universities in the rest of the country.

California State University (CSU), the largest public university system in the country, provides even more access than UC. Almost half (49% in 2016–17) of CSU students receive Pell grants. California’s private nonprofit colleges also play an important role, with 29% of their undergraduates receiving Pell grants.

But perhaps most important are California’s community colleges. More than half of low-income students who attend college in California start at a community college.

Figure 2: Most Low-Income Students Who Attend College in California Start at a Community College

Although college access for low-income students in California is relatively good compared to the rest of the nation, more can be done. For example, improving financial aid would make college more accessible to more low-income students and would likely lead to higher graduation rates. And because so many low-income students start at community colleges, increasing transfer rates is critical to ensuring that higher education continues to serve as a ladder of economic mobility. New reforms at the community colleges—including changes in remediation and the Associate Degree for Transfer program—should lead to substantial increases in transfer and help more students achieve their academic and economic goals.

Helping Community College Students Succeed

California’s community colleges are implementing new policies in developmental (or remedial) education that could improve completion of transfer-level courses for tens of thousands of students every year. Recently passed legislation should result in the vast majority of entering community college students bypassing developmental education and enrolling directly into transfer-level courses in English and math. Many of these students will be provided with concurrent remedial support to help them succeed—namely, co-requisite courses, which feature group work to reinforce difficult concepts, just-in-time remediation, and other activities.

These reforms mark a dramatic change from the traditional approach, which required most students to complete developmental English and math before they could take transfer-level courses. In fact, as of the 2017–18 academic year only half of students enrolling in an English course for the first time and about one-third of first-time math students were able enroll in a transfer-level course. Previous PPIC research shows that students who start college in developmental education are significantly less likely to successfully complete transfer-level courses.

The new policies will be implemented systemwide by fall of 2019, but some colleges began offering co-requisite courses ahead of schedule—as early as 2015–16. Implementation has been faster in English than math: as of 2017–18, 33 of the state’s 115 community colleges were offering English co-requisites, while only 16 offered math co-requisites. This is not surprising, considering that co-requisite support in math must be tailored to the transfer-level courses required for different majors (e.g., statistics, business calculus, pre-calculus, college algebra, math for liberal arts). Between 2016–17 and 2017–18, enrollment in English co-requisites more than doubled (to 8,200), while enrollment in math co-requisites increased 36% (to 1,300).

figure - Early Implementation of Co-requisites Has Been More Widespread in English than in Math

A recent PPIC report found that students enrolled in co-requisite courses are significantly more likely to successfully complete transfer-level courses in math and English than students who started in traditional prerequisite developmental education courses. And they are as likely as those who do not receive co-requisite support to complete transfer-level courses within a year. This is notable because students who take transfer-level courses without co-requisites have been identified as college ready.

figure - Students Enrolled in Co-requisite Courses Have High Completion Rates

The early evidence on co-requisites is promising. As colleges move into the full implementation phase, ongoing research can help them understand what happens as they broaden access to transfer-level courses to a diverse group of students, what types of concurrent support work best, and how co-requisite students perform in subsequent college-level courses.

Serving California’s Diverse College Students

As part of his cradle-to-career initiative, Governor Newsom has emphasized higher education as a key means of expanding Californians’ social and economic opportunities. From proposing more higher education funding in this year’s budget to supporting two years of free tuition for first-time community college students, many of his initiatives are focused on making college accessible and affordable to more of the state’s residents. For these initiatives to succeed, it will be essential to enroll a broad array of students—in particular, those who have been historically underserved in higher education–and to ensure that more students successfully complete college.

The good news is that the state is enrolling a diverse set of students, especially at the two largest systems, California State University (CSU) and the California community colleges (CCC). Overall, these two systems closely reflect the racial and ethnic make-up of California’s high school population—which is critical given that these two systems are key entry points for African American, Latino, low-income, and first generation college students. UC and private nonprofit colleges in California serve diverse populations, including more first generation and low-income students than their peer institutions in the rest of the country, but they do not reflect the full ethnic diversity of the state’s high school graduates.

More challenging is helping students to successfully complete a four-year degree. Graduation rates are very high at UC and at most private nonprofit colleges. At CSU, graduation rates have improved dramatically, but even so about 40% of students do not earn a degree within six years. Most students who enter community colleges with the intent to transfer to a four-year college never do so. Transfer rates are especially low for African American and Latino students.

Both CSU and CCC have launched new policies and programs that hold the promise of improving transfer and reducing inequities. For example, community college reforms in developmental—also known as remedial—education will lead to substantial increases in the share of students taking college-level courses in English and math. The Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) program is making the transition to California State Universities much more straightforward. And the new Guided Pathways initiative provides support services and clear course-taking patterns to community college students to promote success.

These are important steps in the right direction. Renewed interest in Sacramento regarding higher education will help. And Californians are well aware of the stakes. A majority of adults in California (56%) say a four-year college degree is very important for economic and financial success in today’s economy, and 75% believe California’s higher education system is very important to the quality of life and economic vitality of the state.

Proposed Budget Prioritizes College Students in Need

Governor Newsom’s January budget proposal includes $1 billion in new funding for higher education. Much has been made of his plan to cover two years of tuition for first-time, full-time community college students. But that is just one aspect of an overall approach that provides extensive support to a wide variety of students.

Newsom’s proposal increases by nearly 15% the number of “competitive” Cal Grants—a distinct type of support available to students who do not qualify for entitlement grants. Recipients of competitive Cal Grants are often older, non-traditional students. Further, all Cal Grant recipients who have dependent children would receive an additional $6,000 to help with non-tuition related costs. In addition, Newsom’s budget allocates nearly $50 million to programs that address housing and student hunger—and those that provide legal services for undocumented students, staff, and faculty.

The governor’s focus on affordability aligns with Californians’ concerns regarding higher education. According to the latest PPIC survey on Californians and higher education, 58% of all adults noted that affordability was a big problem for California’s public higher education systems; just 14% said that it was not much of a problem. Most Californians also said that higher education should be a high priority for the new governor. This budget proposal suggests that Governor Newsom is listening.

More Students Than Ever Ready for UC and CSU

Governor Newsom’s budget proposal assumes enrollment growth at the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU). But these two systems are seeking to expand even more to accommodate increasing demand, as more California students than ever graduate high school prepared for college.

Between 2011 and 2017, the state saw a dramatic increase of more than 49,000 students (a 32% increase) completing college prep coursework, despite there being only 19,000 more high school graduates (a 5% increase).

Applications to UC and CSU have grown substantially as well. Since 2011, UC applications from California high school graduates are up 31%, and applications to CSU are up 21%.

UC and CSU have been able to accommodate some of that increased demand, but not all of it. Since 2011, UC and CSU enrollment has grown much faster, at 13% and 15%, respectively, than the increase in all high school graduates. But enrollment growth was much smaller than the increase in applications and the number of high school graduates completing college prep courses.

Allowing more students who are academically prepared to start at a four-year college is a good policy choice. Studies show that students who start at a four-year college are more likely to graduate than if they start at a community college. And attending a public school in California leaves students in less debt on average than attending a private college or paying nonresident tuition in other states. Policymakers and institutional leaders will need to think strategically about how to accommodate the growing number of high school graduates who are now prepared for UC and CSU.

One Step Closer to a Statewide Educational Data System

Governor Newsom’s recently proposed budget includes $10 million in one-time funding for the planning, creation, and implementation of a statewide longitudinal data system—including early childhood education, K–12, higher education, the workforce, and health and human services. As we wrote in a recent PPIC report, this idea holds a lot of promise. An integrated data system could allow for improved feedback for educational institutions, more efficient use of public funds, and better evaluation and coordination for the state. The idea also has support in the state senate, where Senators Glazer and Allen proposed a similar system (SB 2) last December.

Each public education system—K–12, the community colleges, California State University, and the University of California—already recognizes the importance of data. They all collect, store, and analyze data on students within their respective systems to improve instruction and outcomes. However, few connections are ever made between educational sectors. Even though a high school senior may graduate from a K–12 school, attend a community college, and then transfer to a UC, data isn’t shared across those systems in any systematic way. So each system has no idea if students are successful in the next stage of their academic career. California is one of the few states that does not follow students across sectors.

The governor’s budget summary also suggests that the data system could be used to improve K–12 measures of career and college readiness. Current measures are based on high school test scores and high school course-taking. But connecting K–12 data to higher education and employment data could lead to more meaningful measures of whether students are able to take and succeed in college-level courses, or whether they work in a job with a living wage.

With the Newsom administration’s support, California may be closer than ever to establishing a data system that can answer key questions about how students move along the educational pipeline. Creation and implementation will involve security, privacy, and governance challenges, but California has 42 other states that can serve as models. This is a much-needed first step in helping the state develop effective policy solutions that will improve students’ progress through school and into the workforce.

Making Career Education Affordable in California

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos recently announced plans to eliminate rules put in place during the Obama administration that require career-education colleges to show that the credentials they award lead to gainful employment. In California, these rules have helped shift enrollment from expensive for-profit institutions to public community colleges, which offer career education programs at much lower cost. Indeed, California’s community college system is one of the most affordable higher education institutions in the country.

Many are concerned that eliminating gainful employment rules will lead to a loss of accountability and even a resurgence of enrollment in for-profit colleges. Some of those colleges have engaged in predatory recruiting practices, and many have high dropout rates and exorbitant student debt. In California, there are also concerns about a reversal of recent gains in affordable access to higher education—particularly among groups that have historically been underserved.

Partly because of the information provided by the gainful employment rules, career education students in California have been increasingly seeking degrees and certificates at the state’s large public community college system rather than at for-profit colleges. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of associate degrees and certificates conferred by for-profit institutions dropped by 25%. In comparison, the state’s community colleges saw an increase of 47%; in 2017, the number of degrees and certificates they awarded was more than eight times the number awarded by for-profit colleges.

Many for-profit institutions have targeted workers looking to get into in-demand fields such as health or family and consumer sciences. These for-profits have marketed options that lead to credentials—known as short-term certificates—that can be earned in less than one year. In 2012, private for-profit colleges awarded almost 21,000 short-term certificates compared to 38,000 awarded at the community colleges. But by 2017 the number of short-term certificates awarded had declined to fewer than 7,000 at for-profit colleges and risen to more than 55,000 at the community colleges. Many of the students who have shifted to the community colleges in recent years are from historically underserved backgrounds (e.g., African American, Latino, older, and low-income students). These students now have opportunities for career education without the hefty price tag attached to programs at for-profit colleges.

The elimination of federal gainful employment rules could have a negative impact on affordable access to career education. However, efforts by California’s community colleges to attract students who might be drawn to for-profit institutions will continue. So too will state rules that make institutions with low graduation rates and high loan default rates ineligible for Cal Grants. These state-level initiatives might not be able to prevent a resurgence of exploitative for-profits, but they could make a difference for many Californians.

Video: Higher Education as a Driver of Economic Mobility

Higher education plays a key role in helping Californians move up the income ladder—but equity gaps are a big challenge. Among young adults born in California, 60% of Asian Americans and 40% of whites have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos. At a Sacramento briefing yesterday, PPIC researcher Sarah Bohn outlined these and other key findings of a new report.

Bohn noted that “higher education is correlated with a host of benefits in today’s society.” Workers with at least a bachelor’s degree earn 73% more than high school graduates. While earnings levels are affected by many factors—including the subject area of a college major, geographic location, and the field of employment—Bohn stressed that “the higher the level of education you have, the greater the economic return that you experience.”

California has historically enjoyed strong economic and education gains. However, while the economy is currently booming, recent trends in educational attainment are not as encouraging. Young adults in California today are only slightly more likely to have graduated from college than older adults. Moreover, graduation rates are lower for low-income residents and underrepresented race/ethnic groups.

These equity gaps are especially troubling because low-income, Latino, and African American students—as well as students who would be the first generation in their families to attend college—make up the vast majority of California’s high school population. The community colleges, UC, and CSU have undertaken serious efforts to narrow these gaps—but, as Bohn noted, all educational sectors, including K–12 schools and private institutions, play an important role.

California’s higher education systems have been implementing policies and programs that are likely to increase college graduation rates among the state’s diverse population. Bohn concluded by highlighting the progress that has been made and outlining additional actions that can help more Californians—particularly underrepresented students—benefit from higher education.

‘Tis the Season for College Applications

Across the nation, millions of high school seniors are in the process of completing college applications. Friday is the deadline to submit applications for freshmen admission to the fall 2019 term to California’s public universities (the University of California and the California State University); most private colleges have January deadlines. The number of applications this year should be staggering—in California most of all. But the state is having difficulty keeping up with demand.

Recent years have seen all-time records in freshman applications. In fall 2016 (the year of most recent nationwide data), more than 10 million applications went to more than 1,500 four-year colleges and universities, leading to 5.7 million admittances and 1.5 million enrolled freshmen. Ten years earlier, just over 6 million applications were submitted, leading to 3.6 million admittances and 1.3 million enrolled freshmen.

Significant growth has occurred in California, too. In fall 2016, 1.5 million applications went to 110 four-year colleges and universities, leading to more than 600,000 admittances and 139,000 enrolled freshmen. Ten years earlier in the state, 800,000 applications were submitted, leading to slightly more than 400,000 admittances and 104,000 enrolled freshmen.

California colleges and universities garner the most applications in the nation. Of the top 10 most popular schools, eight are in California (six UC campuses and two CSU campuses), as are 11 of the top 20. UCLA has led the nation in applications every year for at least the past 17 years, and in 2017 it became the first college in the country to receive more than 100,000 freshmen applications.

The popularity of UC campuses has surged over the past 10 years, with UC Irvine moving from 8th in 2006 to 4th in 2016, UC Davis moving from 11th to 6th, and UC Santa Cruz moving from 30th to 15th. In the CSU system, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has moved from 25th to 18th. And even though other CSU campuses fell in the rankings, they still experienced large increases in applications.

Of course it makes sense that California colleges would lead the nation: the state has more high school graduates than any other and offers a robust system of public universities. And students are applying to more colleges than they did in the past, which is part of the growth in applications. But much of the increase is attributable to improvements in college preparation. Between 2006 and 2016, the number of California high school graduates completing the courses required for UC and CSU eligibility increased by almost 60% (compared to a decline of 1% in the number of high school graduates who do not complete the college prep courses).

Unfortunately, California’s public universities have not been able to accommodate all qualified applicants. Indeed, California universities lead the nation in rejecting applicants. Each of the UC campuses except Merced are unable to admit all of the eligible students who apply. Six CSU campuses (including Long Beach, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo) are impacted for all undergraduate programs, meaning they cannot admit all qualified applicants, and most of the other campuses are impacted in certain majors. Both UC and CSU refer qualified applicants to campuses that have more room, but more needs to be done to expand capacity at campuses with high demand.

Testimony: Career Education Is Key to Meeting California’s Workforce Needs

Sarah Bohn, research director and senior fellow at PPIC, testified today, November 27, 2018, before the Assembly Select Committee on Career Technical Education and Building a 21st Century Workforce. Here are her prepared remarks.

Thank you for convening this informational hearing on higher education and the workforce. PPIC recently surveyed Californians on these topics and a large majority (75%) view the state’s higher education system as very important to the quality of life and economic vitality of California. Not surprisingly, the same share say that the higher education system should be a high or very high priority for the new governor. So this hearing is extremely timely and I’m so pleased to share PPIC research on education and workforce needs.

Most jobs require some college training

The majority of jobs today and in the future will require education beyond high school—split about equally between jobs that require a four-year college degree and those that require education or credentials provided at community colleges. Only about one-third of new jobs created in California over the next decade or so will be available to workers with no more than a high school diploma. These workforce needs are the result of long-term shifts toward a knowledge-based economy. It’s not just that there are new jobs that require more postsecondary education, but the need for credentials within professions has grown as well. For example, more office administrators now have a college education than in the past.

Better-paying jobs are more likely to need college training

College credentials are also the route to accessing better-paying jobs. With the trend toward a knowledge-based economy comes an increasingly wide gap in terms of earnings between jobs that require a college education and those that don’t. Among the top ten occupations in terms of job growth you find many service sector jobs that pay less than $35,000 in annual earnings (personal care aides, food preparation, freight/stock movers, medical assistants) and do not require a college education. And you find a handful of jobs at the opposite extreme—which pay three to four times as much and require a college education (registered nursing, software developers, managers). This trend is likely to continue and might become more extreme with additional pressures like AI (artificial intelligence) and further automation.

California’s community college system is key to meeting state workforce needs

Ensuring we have the workforce to meet these demands—and ensuring future workers can access higher-paying jobs—requires a higher education system that is responsive to student and economic needs. The young workers of today and tomorrow are much more diverse than the current workforce, comprised of demographic groups with historically lower levels of college attainment (including racial/ethnic minorities and first-generation college students). And though we’ve made progress, there’s still room to broaden access to college—and narrow achievement gaps.

For that reason, community colleges—and career education programs in particular—are critical to educating our future workforce. The community colleges are the most common entry point to higher education for Californians, serving almost three times as many students as CSU and UC combined. They also serve a more diverse mix of students. In career education (or CTE) programs, the majority of students are nonwhite and low income. Students range from recent high school graduates to stranded workers (who lack the skills needed to succeed in the job market) to older workers in need of retraining. And these programs provide opportunities in a wide spectrum of careers. As just one mission of the community colleges, CTE is so consequential for meeting workforce needs and improving economic outcomes because it is often the fastest route to new and better careers.

Career education programs can pay off for students

Earning credentials in CTE pays off for students. Those who earn an associate degree see a 20–35% increase in their wages. The payoff wanes for shorter credentials but remains positive even for certificates that can be earned in less than a year (certificates of 6–18 units). But the choice of program or career matters a lot. If health programs are excluded from these calculations, the payoff is much lower on average (4–7% for an associate degree). The health field offers the highest returns across all broad program types. But there’s even variation in which health programs pay off (e.g., registered nursing is more remunerative than medical assisting).

Because CTE credentials vary so much in terms of what they offer in the labor market, the choice of what to study can be as important as the choice to go to college. That information is critical for policymakers evaluating effectiveness and especially for students choosing programs. I commend the community colleges in sharing earnings potential data on their website through tools like Salary Surfer.

Some students may need new job skills to move along a career pathway to higher-paying jobs

Instead of pitting one type of credential or program against another, what we should be thinking about is improving long-term economic mobility for students. A lot of CTE students start by earning a short-term credential, which offers the lowest earnings bump, on average. But those credentials might help an individual switch to an industry with more opportunity in the long run or to start an educational career pathway toward higher-level achievement (i.e., earning “stackable” credentials). Unfortunately our research shows that only a small share of CTE programs (at most 18%) have well-defined career pathways and less than one-quarter of students who start with short-term certificates take additional steps toward broader career options.

But there’s great promise in improving those career pathways. We found that students who “stack” credentials—in this example, in a health field—eventually catch up in earnings to those who started on a high-return pathway like registered nursing. Students who earn a single health credential (mostly high-return associate degrees) see a marked improvement in their earning trajectory. Those who complete a lower-value credential but then return and complete a second one later do nearly as well. Of course this takes time (which is not free), but it’s a reminder that a single credential is not the end of the road. Effective CTE programs can connect students to in-demand and high-return careers in many ways.

In closing, this research suggests state investments in CTE are worthwhile, both for improving student career outcomes and meeting workforce needs. But the state and colleges can’t operate alone; partnership with businesses will be key to making sure that programs address workforce needs and adjust as those needs change. Only then can the state be deliberate in its investments to make sure that CTE programs improve long-term outcomes for students and the state’s economy.