Category: PPIC Higher Education Center

Moving up the Health Career Ladder

Upward mobility is inextricably tied to educational attainment in today’s economy. How do California’s educational institutions foster upward mobility for their students when developing their programs of study? One way community colleges across the country are working to do so is through the development of training pathways that allow students to “stack” multiple credentials. The idea is that students can earn certificates or degrees sequentially and move up a career ladder—upward mobility in action. For example, a student who completes a certificate in medical assisting can return to complete additional training and earn a degree in registered nursing—an occupation that offers large wage returns.

Despite the promise of “stackable credentials,” our analysis of students enrolled in health programs at California’s community colleges finds that among those who earn one credential, most don’t go on to get another. We followed the 85,000 students who earned their first health degree between 2000 and 2009. Only 13 percent completed a second health credential within six years. This isn’t terribly surprising since about half of health students in California’s community colleges initially earned an associate degree—the highest level award that is offered. Many associate degrees in health lead to well-paying jobs such as registered nurse or dental hygienist. But even among students who earned a shorter-term, lower-return credential, only 20 percent returned to earn another health credential.

However, the evidence suggests that students who do stack multiple health credentials see sizable economic returns eventually (see figure). Median earnings are similar across the two groups of students before starting their health training programs and while they are in school. The wage trajectories diverge, however, after degree completion. Students completing a single award—most often an associate degree—earn more than $15,000 per quarter just one year after finishing their health degree. In comparison, those completing multiple awards—a shorter-term, lower-return certificate is the most prevalent first degree—earn only $8,000 a year out. This difference narrows considerably over a five year period when students completing a second health credential see a larger gradient in their earnings.

Currently, most students who “stack” health credentials ultimately attain an associate degree in nursing—one of the highest value awards offered in the community college system. It’s plausible to imagine building pathways that allow students to meaningfully stack credentials to other high-value, in-demand careers. But to do so, colleges must carefully align program curricula to ensure that skills gained along the way are sequential or complementary, while at the same time making sure that each credential has standalone value in the labor market. This is not an easy task but one our community college system is currently focused on, given state and federal investment in growing career pathways.

At the same time, community colleges are investing in ways to support students as they explore pathways to well-paying careers. All of these efforts, taken together, hold promise for increasing the number of students who improve their economic standing through engagement with training pathways available through California’s community colleges.

Learn more

Read the report Health Training Pathways at California’s Community Colleges
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Equity and Remedial Education at Community Colleges

PPIC research has shown that students from groups that are historically underrepresented in higher education are more likely to take a remedial—or developmental—course at some point in their college career. Our research also shows that these students are less likely to complete a college-level course in math or English—and less likely to meet their educational goals. At a time when California faces a shortfall of college-educated workers, this has profound implications for the state’s future. Given that more than half of Latinos and African Americans who pursue higher education attend community college, policymakers need to focus on closing access and achievement gaps.

A recent PPIC report found that 87% of both Latino and African American community college students took at least one developmental math or English course, compared to 70% of Asian and 73% of white students. Likewise, 86% of recipients of fee waivers from the California Community Colleges Board of Governors (BOGW) or Pell Grants—our proxy for low-income status—took at least one developmental math or English course.

A closer look reveals that Latino, African American, and low-income students are likely to be placed in developmental education at lower levels than other groups of students. This requires students to take a longer sequence of developmental courses—up to four semesters’ worth—and dramatically alters college trajectories. African American and Latino students make up 61% of students who enter the developmental math sequence four levels below college ready, but only 41% of students who begin one level below. Similarly, the share of low-income developmental math students who start four levels below college ready (82%) is significantly higher than the share that begin one level below (64%). This means that Latino, African American, and low-income students are more likely to spend valuable time and financial aid on courses that do not count toward a degree or transfer.

Equity issues are apparent not only in students’ participation in developmental education, but also in their outcomes. When we examine the completion of college-level math and English courses among students who started out in developmental education, we find that rates are lower for most underrepresented groups. For example, 39% of Asian students and 30% of white students who took a developmental math passed a college-level math course, compared to 24% of Latino and 14% of African American students. The same pattern holds true for English, where 59% of Asian students and 49% of white students successfully completed a college-level English course, compared to 42% of Latino and 28% of African American students. However, low-income students who enrolled in developmental education courses completed college-level courses (26% math and 45% English) at about the same rate as developmental students overall (27% math and 44% in English).

It is also important to look at the assessment and placement policies that place students into developmental courses. Our research found that these policies vary widely across the state’s 113 community colleges. As a result, some Latino and African American students may be enrolling in developmental education at higher rates, especially in math, simply because they attend colleges that set higher cut-off scores for placement into college courses.

Our recent findings suggest that developmental education, which is intended to help students succeed in college, may actually be contributing to college achievement and completion gaps. A multipronged approach that improves developmental education courses and streamlines assessment and placement policies can lead to more equitable student outcomes.

Learn more

Read Preparing Students for Success in California’s Community Colleges
Read Determining College Readiness in California’s Community Colleges: A Survey of Assessment and Placement Policies
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Immigrants Are Key to the State’s High-Skilled Workforce

Immigrants are integral to California’s highly skilled workforce. As California’s demand for highly educated workers has outpaced the supply produced by its colleges and universities, immigrants have filled the gap. Immigrants now make up a substantial share of the state’s highly educated workers. Today, three of every ten highly educated workers in California is an immigrant, up from one in five in 1990. Immigrants are especially important in the state’s high tech sector, comprising 52% of college graduates who work in computer systems design and services and 57% of those in computer equipment and peripheral manufacturing (findings based on the 2013‒2015 American Community Survey).

Over time, the face of immigration to California has changed. Recent immigrants are more highly educated than immigrants who arrived earlier. In the past, most immigrants arrived from Latin America. But in recent years, most new immigrants to California are from Asia. Because many immigrants from Asia are highly educated, this regional shift has contributed to a change in immigrants’ education levels. Immigrants who have arrived in California in the past five years are among the most highly educated demographic group in the state, with more than half (52%) holding at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 35% of US-born Californians.

Immigrants to California from the seven countries that are the focus of President Trump’s executive order —Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—also tend to be highly educated. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, California is home to 305,000 immigrants from these countries—35% of the total number of immigrants from these countries in the nation—with most (213,000) from Iran. Altogether, almost half (47%) of adult immigrants (ages 25‒64) from these countries have a bachelor’s or graduate degree, including 54% of those from Iran.

Given the contribution of highly educated immigrants to California’s economy, and especially to the state’s high tech sector, it is no wonder that many companies and state officials have raised concerns about the president’s executive order.

PPIC has projected that California faces a workforce skills gap and needs to increase the number of adults with a bachelor’s degree by an additional 1.1 million to meet workplace demands by 2030. These projections assume that the state will continue to attract substantial numbers of highly educated immigrants from abroad. Restrictions on the flow of those immigrants could exacerbate the projected workforce skills gap—and cause significant damage to the state’s economy.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

For-Profit Colleges Face an Uncertain Future

California’s private for-profit colleges are in flux now that the US Department of Education has parted ways with the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS)―one of the largest for-profit accreditation agencies. Former education secretary John B. King Jr. based his decision to reject ACICS’s bid to continue overseeing hundreds of colleges nationwide on findings that ACICS was allowing colleges such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges (known as Everest College in California) to keep their accreditation despite very low graduation rates and allegations of fraud and predatory practices.

This decision—which is being appealed by ACICS—is important because without accreditation, colleges cannot receive federal Pell Grants and student loans. ACICS-accredited schools across the country received $4.76 billion in federal student aid in 2015. Even though these schools have 18 months to gain accreditation through other agencies, some fear they will not meet the deadline since gaining accreditation is a lengthy process. Without accreditation, colleges may be forced to shut down, which could affect up to 600,000 students nationwide.

How might this decision affect students in California? The most recent enrollment data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education indicates that campus closures would not have a major effect on overall student enrollment. (This data is from 2014, so to get closer to what for-profit enrollment looks like today, I subtracted enrollment at colleges that have closed since then: Brooks, Everest, Heald, International Academy of Design and Technology, ITT Tech, Sage, TransWestern Truck Driving School, Westwood, and Wyotech.) In California, ACICS oversaw 53 campuses, including Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts and Kaplan College (which was recently acquired by Brightwood College). In total, 26,478 students attended ACICS colleges; this number represents 11.1% of for-profit college enrollment and only 1.1% of California’s total postsecondary student population.

However, the 26,500 students who could be displaced by campus closures may face difficult decisions. These students have several options: they could transfer to another college, apply to have their loans forgiven by the federal government, or apply to the state student tuition recovery fund for reimbursement. But none of these options are perfect. Community colleges that accept for-profit students may not accept all of their credits. Enrolling in another for-profit carries the risk that it will close, too. Students who apply for federal loan relief may experience long waiting periods, and there is uncertainty about whether this relief will continue. At the state level, the student tuition fund may not refund all of a student’s debt.

It is possible that the Trump administration will loosen for-profit regulations, which may forestall additional campus closures. But given the uncertain future of this sector, along with low graduation rates and high levels of student debt at many for-profit colleges, students may want to find alternative programs in the public and private not-for-profit sectors.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Californians Favor Higher Taxes over Higher Tuition

After six years without tuition increases, California’s public universities are considering proposals to modestly raise tuition for California residents. The University of California (UC) has proposed increasing systemwide tuition and fees for undergraduates by $336 to a total of $12,630 for the academic year. The California State University (CSU) has proposed increasing in-state student undergraduate tuition by $270 to a total of $5,742 for full-time students. Campuses at each system charge additional fees, which currently average about $1,200 at UC and $1,400 at CSU.

A recent PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and higher education indicates that these proposals are likely to be unpopular with the public. The survey found that Californians are concerned about the cost of college: 57% said that the overall affordability of California’s public colleges and universities is a big problem. Only 23% of Californians would be willing to increase student fees in order to increase funding for California’s public higher education system.

This is not the first time Californians have voiced disapproval of tuition increases. Before UC and CSU raised tuition in 2011, PPIC’s 2010 higher education survey found that only 35% of Californians favored increasing student fees as a way to maintain higher education funding levels in the face of state budget cuts. In 2011, our survey found that 65% of Californians were very concerned about increasing student tuition and fees as a way to deal with decreased funding.

Today, when many policy preferences are often divided along party lines, there is partisan consensus on this issue: at least 70% of Californians across parties say they would be unwilling to increase student fees to fund higher education. Indeed, less than a third of Californians across all regions and demographic groups say they would be willing to increase student fees.

At the same time, a majority of Californians (67%) believe that the current level of state funding for public colleges and universities is inadequate. So what are Californians willing to do to increase funding for public higher education? Overall, they are twice as likely to say they are willing to pay higher taxes as to say they are willing to increase student fees (48% to 23%). However, and perhaps unsurprisingly, we see notable partisan differences when it comes to willingness to pay higher taxes. While 68% of Democrats say they would be willing to pay higher taxes to increase funding for public colleges and universities, only 20% of Republicans say the same.

Another way to increase funding for California’s public colleges and universities would be to admit more out-of-state students, who pay higher tuition. Californians are somewhat divided on this issue, with half saying they would not be willing to admit more out-of-state students, while 46% say they would be willing to do so. However, only 21% of Californians support admitting more out-of-state students if this would mean admitting fewer in-state students. This view holds across party lines: only one in four Republicans (25%), and even fewer independents (21%) and Democrats (16%), are willing to admit more out-of-state students if this would mean admitting fewer in-state students. UC has proposed increasing systemwide out-of-state tuition and fees by over $1,600 to almost $40,000.

Our survey findings suggest that the proposed UC and CSU tuition and fee increases may be unpopular among Californians of all political persuasions—and that Californians’ reluctance to increase the financial burden on the state’s students may be driven by concerns about access and affordability.

Learn more

Read the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

College Costs Could Rise for Some Students

The governor’s budget proposal includes increased funding for UC and CSU but likely not enough to keep the systems from raising tuition—which the governor said he expects. The proposed tuition increases (about 5% at CSU and 3% at UC) are modest compared to the large increases from 2006 to 2011 (104% at CSU and 92% at UC). PPIC has shown that while financial aid increases protect most students from low income families from tuition hikes, students from middle- and upper-class families see their costs increase.

The governor’s proposed budget also phases out the Middle Class Scholarship program. Created by the legislature in 2013—after CSU and UC costs climbed rapidly—this program aimed to help students from families too wealthy to receive Cal Grants (state grants that cover tuition for low-income students). The scholarships cover 10% to 40% of tuition (depending on family income and assets) for eligible students from families with incomes up to $156,000. About 37,000 students benefitted from the scholarship this year.

How much do middle-class students pay?
To characterize what a student pays to attend college, we often use the term “net price”—a comprehensive accounting of student costs and assistance. To determine the net price, we add books, room and board, and other expenses to tuition, and subtract federal, state, institutional, and local grants and scholarships (money that a student doesn’t have to pay back).

Students who receive some form of federal financial aid (grants, loans, work study, etc.) generally pay much less than the full cost of college. For students from families making less than $80,000, federal, state and local grants usually cover at least the full tuition at both CSU and UC—but these students pay a net price that could be as high as $11,000 a year at CSU and $13,000 at UC in order to cover expenses other than tuition. Students from families making $75,000 to $110,000 are generally too wealthy for federal and state grants; they pay a much higher average net price of about $16,000 at CSU and $21,000 at UC. (Also, many students pay close to the full cost because they do not apply for and/or are ineligible for federal aid.)

The most recent cost data is from 2013‒14—this was the first year of the Middle Class Scholarship program. Average awards that year were $1,100 or less, and once the program was fully implemented awards were slated to range from $1,300 and $5,400 at UC and $700 and $2,700 at CSU, depending on the income and assets of eligible students and on the number of applicants.

Not surprisingly, the phasing out of the Middle Class Scholarship and the impending tuition increase are expected to have a disproportionate impact on middle- and upper-class students. As a result, those students will probably pay more for their degrees.

Learn more

Read “Higher Education in California: Student Costs”
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Legislative Leaders Look Ahead

Despite their political differences, California’s legislative leaders have similar views of the state’s most pressing challenges. In a conversation facilitated by PPIC this week in Sacramento, the two top legislators from both major parties provided a preview of the issues they expect to tackle this session. With the impact of federal policy changes still unclear, the legislative leaders focused on longstanding challenges.

Asked to list the top issues the legislature and governor need to work on this session, Anthony Rendon, the Democratic speaker of the state assembly, named housing and transportation—topics he heard about repeatedly as he campaigned around the state. He said he saw the impact of a housing and transportation crisis first hand when walking precincts in the Inland Empire. “If you knock on someone’s door at 7:00, 7:30 p.m., they’re not home yet. They’re still on the freeway.”

Jean Fuller, the Republican leader of the state senate, sees the top issues as affordability in California generally and jobs. “We are concerned about housing, but we are also very concerned about jobs.” She noted that in her district, which stretches from Visalia to Twenty-Nine Palms, there is double-digit unemployment.

Kevin de León, the Democratic state senate president pro tem, said the past legislative session had been particularly productive; he highlighted minimum wage, gun safety, and climate change legislation. In this session, he said, “we have to deliver on the issues of housing and transportation and the issue of economic growth.”

For Chad Mayes, Republican leader of the assembly, poverty is the number one issue in the state, which has the highest poverty rate in the nation. “If you use that as a performance measure for how well our board of directors—the state legislature—is doing, I think you’d have to say we have been failing.” He added: “We’re failing, in large part because of housing costs.”

The speakers acknowledged major policy differences. But they pointed to past successes in bridging them as a sign that they can do so again.

“Things are not broken here, in comparison to DC,” said de León.

The News on Student Debt Is Not All Bad

Californians are rightly concerned about the costs of attending college and the amount of money many students need to borrow in order to pay those costs. In a recent PPIC Statewide Survey, 57% of Californians identified lack of college affordability as a big problem. An even larger majority—78%—agreed with the statement that students have to borrow too much money to pay for a college education.

As college costs have risen, the share of students taking out loans has grown substantially in both California and the nation. Just ten years ago, only about one-third of freshmen at four-year colleges and universities in California took out loans compared to 44% in 2014. Equally troubling is the growing size of those loans. Even after adjusting for inflation, average loan amounts for freshmen increased 14% in California between 2004 and 2014 (from just over $6,000 to almost $6,900). Among graduating seniors at California colleges in 2015, cumulative student debt totaled just over $24,000 for those who took out loans.

But not all of the news is bad. There are some encouraging and newly emerging trends in student debt, especially in California.

  • Over the past few years the trend toward more loans and higher loan amounts has reversed, with declines in both the share of freshmen taking out loans and the amount borrowed. In California, the share of freshmen at four-year colleges taking out loans has declined from 48% to 44%, and average loan amounts (adjusted for inflation) have declined from over $7,700 in 2010 to under $6,900 in 2014.
  • Student debt remains lower in California than in the rest of the nation, with California freshmen less likely to take out a loan (44%) than their counterparts in the rest of the nation (54%). Among those who do borrow, loan amounts are lower in California ($6,851) than in the rest of the US ($7,014).
  • The vast majority of students in California attend public colleges, and these students are much less likely to take out loans than students at private colleges. Very few California community college students take out loans, and less than 40% of freshmen at UC and CSU take out a loan, compared to more than 50% of freshmen at private nonprofit colleges and 70% at private for-profit colleges. Among those who take out loans, the amounts borrowed are also lower at California’s public colleges. Graduating seniors in 2015 at UC and CSU who took out loans had a median cumulative debt of $16,600, compared to $23,400 at private nonprofit colleges and $30,500 at private for-profit colleges. The lower rates of student debt at California’s public colleges and universities are related to institutional and state policies that provide scholarship and grant support to many low- and middle income students.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, strong job prospects for college graduates, especially in California, mean that the vast majority of students are able to pay back their loans. Loan default rates are very low for students graduating from the state’s public and nonprofit private universities. Students at private for-profit colleges fare much worse. They often accumulate large amounts of debt, and this—coupled with low graduation rates—often makes it a struggle to pay back their loans.

It is important to remember that loans are an important and useful source of financial aid for many students. Indeed, taking on debt can be a very smart economic choice if it allows a student to enroll in and complete college. Policymakers and educators should seek to provide more opportunities for students to strategically use loans to reach their educational goals. Student debt becomes a problem when graduates are not able to pay back their loans—especially if they received a low-quality education and/or took on an exorbitant amount of debt. These are outcomes we should work to prevent.

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Making College Affordable
Read the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Improving College Placement Policies

Assessment and placement policies govern where students begin their college trajectory. This is a high-stakes issue for students, affecting how quickly they achieve their educational goals. Too often, it affects their likelihood of reaching these goals at all. Students who are placed in developmental, or remedial, courses end up spending significant portions of their limited financial aid packages—and sometimes take on debt—to pay for courses that don’t usually count toward a degree.

Findings from a PPIC survey on assessment and placement policies show that California’s community colleges vary in how they identify college-ready students. First, colleges use different assessment tests. Second, even those that use the same test apply different cut-off scores, which are the minimum scores that a student must get to be designated college ready. While over half of colleges reported using the Accuplacer test to assess college readiness in math, cut-off scores ranged from 25 to 96 out of 120. Students with the median score of 58 would be deemed college ready at only half of these colleges, while at the other half, they would be placed into developmental math. This lack of consistency means that access to transfer-level courses is determined not only by students’ performance on the test, but also by placement policies at the institution where they enroll.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy fix to this problem, as opposing forces are at play. On one hand, the current approach of setting local assessment and placement policies allows for considerable academic freedom and institutional autonomy, giving colleges flexibility to respond to the local needs of the population they serve. This is particularly important for placement into developmental coursework, the structure of which varies significantly across colleges. On the other hand, locally determined cut-off scores into transfer-level courses lead to inconsistent standards and can send a confusing message to high schools around the state about what it means to be college ready.

Accordingly, placement into transfer-level courses should be uniform across the community college system. Having clearer and more uniform policies for accessing introductory transfer-level courses (e.g., college composition, college math, and statistics, among others) is critical because these courses are considered equal in the eyes of four-year institutions accepting them for transfer. Variation in the standards used to access these courses dilutes this presumed equality.

California State University (CSU) presents a compelling case study for a statewide system that has consistent assessment and placement policies for determining college readiness. Across the 23 universities in the CSU system, a common assessment and common cut-off scores are used for placement into transfer-level math and English. Yet individual campuses maintain flexibility regarding how they structure developmental education sequences and placement into these courses.

Systemwide assessment and placement policies at California’s community colleges could yield multiple benefits:

  • Eliminating barriers for students who transfer from one college to another. Clear and uniform policies for accessing transfer-level courses would begin to make students’ assessment results more portable across colleges, especially those in the same region.
  • Improving programs and support for students in developmental education. Currently, the lack of comparable data across colleges has prevented the system from measuring the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase student success in developmental education.
  • Sending a clear message to high schools about college readiness standards at community colleges. This would be akin to the uniform policy used by high schools and colleges across the state to determine college readiness as part of the Early Assessment Program (EAP).

Continuing to let community colleges determine placement into developmental education while standardizing placement policies into transfer-level courses will preserve local autonomy and help to bring about the benefits that come with systemwide uniformity.

Learn more

Read the report Determining College Readiness in California’s Community Colleges: A Survey of Assessment and Placement Policies
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Grading the Higher Education System

Californians give positive grades to the three branches of the state’s public higher education system—the community colleges, California State University, and the University of California. But the PPIC Statewide Survey on higher education shows that they have big concerns about affordability. Most California adults—regardless of political party, income, or age—see it as a big problem. And when Californians are asked to name the most important issue facing the state’s public colleges and universities, affordability leads the list.

“This is really the issue that’s at the forefront of people’s minds when you’re talking about higher education,” said PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes, who presented the findings at a Sacramento briefing last week.

Two out of three Californians say state funding of public colleges and universities is inadequate. While most would support a state construction bond to fund higher education projects, there is much less consensus on other ideas to increase revenue.

Learn more

Read the December PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey