Californians’ Views on the Value of College

An overwhelming majority of Californians view our higher education system as very important to the state’s quality of life and economic vitality over the next 20 years. More than two-thirds of Democrats and Republicans, as well as large majorities across the state’s regions and demographic groups, share this perception. In fact, there has been a general consensus on this issue among Californians since we began asking this question in 2007.

However, Californians report differing opinions about the necessity of a college education for individual success.

A majority of Californians (59%) in our most recent survey say that a college education is necessary to succeed in today’s work world, and more than two-thirds of Asians, Latinos, and blacks concur. But fewer than half of whites hold this view. Notably, the share of whites who say college is necessary has dropped 11 points since 2007, despite staying generally constant among other racial/ethnic groups.

Californians at the lower end of the income scale tend to believe that college is necessary, while higher-income residents are less inclined to this view. Two-thirds of Californians with household incomes below $40,000 think a college education is necessary, compared to about half of those with higher incomes. Among Californians with college degrees and those with no college education, solid majorities say college is a necessity. In contrast, only half of those with some college hold this view.

Democrats and Republicans are divided when it comes to the necessity of a college education in today’s work world: two-thirds of Democrats, compared to fewer than half of Republicans and independents, think of college education as a necessity. Since 2007, the share of Democrats holding this view has remained consistent, while the shares of Republicans and independents holding this view have declined 15 and 19 points, respectively.

Foreign-born adults are far more likely than those born in the United States (80% to 47%) to say college is necessary. Parents of children age 18 or younger are also far more likely than others (68% to 54%) to place high importance on a college education.

While most Californians view our higher education system as very important to the state’s future, differences in opinion emerge regarding the necessity of a college education. In particular, many Asians, blacks, and Latinos, as well as Californians with lower incomes, view a college education as necessary to succeed. These findings are especially salient as the issue of access to California’s higher education institutions gains prominence.

Learn more

Read the March PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Challenges and Opportunities for Higher Education

This is a critical time for higher education in California. Higher education matters to Californians, who are applying to the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) in record numbers. It also matters to the state, whose future prosperity depends on an educated workforce. And California can—indeed, must—do more to increase the number of college graduates. That was the message at the launch of the PPIC Higher Education Center presented by Hans Johnson, center director and PPIC senior fellow.

There is much to be done in the three areas the PPIC Higher Education Center will focus on, Johnson said, providing examples in each one:

  • Access: California ranks 47th in the nation in the proportion of high school graduates who go directly to a four-year college.
  • Outcomes: Fewer than half of community college students ever earn certificates or degrees—or transfer to a four-year institution. Fewer than 60% of CSU students earn bachelor’s degrees.
  • Finance: Tuition at CSU and UC is at an all-time high. California faces the ongoing challenge of figuring out how to fund the higher education system.

But Johnson said he is optimistic. The public systems are adopting innovative strategies, and there is increased interest—on the part of the public and the legislature—in higher education.

Following Johnson’s presentation, Kevin de León, the state senate’s president pro tem, and Janet Napolitano, University of California president, discussed a range of issues in a conversation with Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. The speakers sounded similar themes.

Both de León and Napolitano emphasized the need to better fund public higher education and expand access at a time when a diverse group of Californians is coming of age. The leaders were asked about their reactions to a highly critical state audit of UC, which concluded that the university hurt California high school graduates by admitting too many out-of-state applicants.

De León said the findings were not surprising, given funding cuts by the state: “When you make deep cuts and when you shortchange California students, in particular, these are the consequences.”

Napolitano said that after the state made deep cuts in UC’s budget, the university had no good options: it could have reduced enrollment slots for California students, raised tuition even more than it did, or brought in more out-of-state and international students. UC chose the latter. She urged Californians—particularly in the legislature and the executive branch—to take a step back.

“Those decisions were made, they had to be made,” she said. “You have to make the best of a bad situation. Now, what do we do together moving forward and what is our collective vision?”

Commentary: State Universities Are in a Budgetary Bind

This commentary was published in the New York Times on Monday, April 11, as a response to the question, “Are Public Universities Neglecting In-State Students?

Many people don’t realize that the statesnot the federal governmentare the primary funders of public higher education in the United States. Faced with periodic budget crises, competing priorities and difficulty in raising additional revenue, almost all the states have reduced their funding for higher education over the past couple decades.

Continue reading this commentary and the full discussion on nytimes.com.

Introducing the PPIC Higher Education Center

California’s higher education system is not keeping up with the state’s changing economy. Population and education trends suggest that California will face a shortfall of 1.1 million college graduates by 2030. To close this gap and meet future workforce demand, the state needs to act now.

The good news is that higher education policy has gained new prominence in Sacramento. Concerns about affordability and efficiency have opened the way for wide-ranging change in higher education. Identifying policies and resources that improve both student success and institutional effectiveness are essential.

And that is where PPIC comes in.

Today, we are pleased to announce the establishment of the PPIC Higher Education Center. It is dedicated to advancing practical, evidence-based solutions that enhance educational opportunities for all of California’s students—improving lives and expanding economic growth across the state. The center expands on the model of independent, nonpartisan research and constructive engagement that defines all of PPIC’s work.

PPIC laid the groundwork for the center over the past decade with high-quality research on major higher education issues and productive conversations about solutions. The PPIC Higher Education Center represents a significant ramping up of investment in this critical area, and we thank the Sutton Family Fund for its core support of this effort.

The center will focus on three critical issues:

  • Expanding access. Identifying policies that increase and strengthen pathways to higher education, ensuring that all Californians have the opportunity to earn a college degree.
  • Managing finances. Helping to determine the most effective funding approaches, to keep college affordable and broaden the impact of the state’s higher education investments.
  • Improving outcomes. Promoting strategies that produce more college graduates and prepare Californians—and the state’s economy—to be successful in a changing world.

In conjunction with the launch of center, PPIC is releasing Higher Education in California, a set of seven policy briefs on the state’s most critical challenges in higher education. This briefing kit is designed to inform state leaders and to raise awareness more broadly about the important higher education issues facing California.

We invite you to read Higher Education in California and visit our new PPIC Higher Education Center online. We also invite you to stay up to date with PPIC Higher Education Center activities: ·

Photo courtesy of Public Affairs/Sacramento State.

Community Colleges and Career Technical Education

The governor’s January budget proposal allocates increased funding to support the Strong Workforce Program, which will enable California’s community college system to expand access to career technical education (CTE), commonly referred to as vocational education.

This proposal comes at a time of renewed attention to CTE. The federal 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act focuses in part on improving community colleges’ engagement in workforce training. In California, in addition to the investment proposed by the governor, the California Career Pathways Trust—a pilot program created by 2014 legislation—aims to ensure the development and strengthening of career pathway training programs.

California’s community colleges have always played a key role in providing CTE training opportunities. While CTE training can start as early as high school, CTE at the community colleges provides a closer tie to workforce opportunities—to meet both student and employer needs. For-profit colleges, which offer a number of CTE programs, are under increased scrutiny due to poor graduation rates, mounting student debt, and questions about the value of their degrees—putting even more focus on the state’s public two-year colleges to provide training opportunities in high-demand programs.

Training programs in the health care field are a prime example. The health care sector in California is large and growing, providing essential services to the state’s population as well as employment opportunities to a wide variety of workers. And according to our recent report, nearly 200,000 new health care jobs over the next decade will require some college training but not a bachelor’s degree. Given the state’s interest in serving employment needs and diversifying the health care workforce, it is crucially important to understand the ability of California’s community colleges to effectively train health workers for needed jobs.

Beyond meeting the state’s workforce needs, career technical education also has the potential to substantively improve labor market outcomes for a wide range of students. Research has identified sizable labor market returns to obtaining a career technical credential, and the California Community College Chancellor’s Office makes this information publicly available through its Salary Surfer web tool. But much remains unknown, especially why economic returns vary across programs and student groups and why more students do not complete a credential at all. To ensure recent state and federal investments—and future reforms—are effective, it is important to fill the knowledge gaps on the student, institutional, and policy choices that lead to optimal outcomes.

Perhaps more importantly, if vocational training is to be a viable mechanism for improving economic mobility, especially for disadvantaged groups, we need a better understanding of the most promising pathways. Upcoming PPIC research will examine this very issue, looking at student success at California’s community colleges across health CTE programs and student demographic groups to provide a clearer picture of effective career technical education.

Video: Californians Weigh in on Presidential Race

The strong partisan divisions prominent in the nation this election year are also evident in California, the latest PPIC Statewide Survey shows. As the primary nears, Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided in their views about the appropriate role and size of government. Dean Bonner, the PPIC survey’s associate director, presented these and other key survey findings in Sacramento last week.

Bonner noted that preferences among California’s likely voter in the upcoming presidential primary are similar to those seen in many states that have already voted. Among Democratic likely voters—including independents who say they will vote in the Democratic primary—48% support Hillary Clinton and 41% support Bernie Sanders. Most young voters support Sanders and most over age 45 support Clinton. Clinton leads among Latinos, women, and those who describe themselves as politically middle of the road, while Sanders leads among men and voters who describe themselves as very liberal.

Donald Trump leads the Republican field with 38%, followed by Ted Cruz with 27% and John Kasich with 14%. Bonner noted evidence in the survey of discontent with the status quo in the nation—signs that may have fueled the candidacies of “outsiders” in both major parties. A majority of likely voters—63%—say the nation is going in the wrong direction and 47% say the US will have bad times financially in the coming year. And Congress’ job performance gets a very low rating—across party lines. Notably, Republicans are more likely to approve of President Obama (20%) than they are to approve of the Republican-led Congress (11%).

Testimony: Closing California’s Degree Gap

PPIC senior fellow Hans Johnson testified at a joint hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee and Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance yesterday (March 2, 2016). The topic was “Closing California’s Certificate and Degree Attainment Gap.” Here are his prepared remarks.


Thank you for organizing this joint hearing on such an important topic. My name is Hans Johnson. I am a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC is a nonpartisan, independent research institute and as such does not take positions on bills before the legislature. My testimony today is based on a recently released PPIC report, Will California Run Out of College Graduates?, which I authored with my colleagues Marisol Cuellar Mejia and Sarah Bohn.

Educational attainment is the single most important determinant of economic well-being for individuals, for states, and for countries. As the California economy continues to change, becoming more technical and requiring more skills of workers, a key question is whether the state’s workforce will be ready to meet these future challenges.

To answer this question, PPIC has developed projections of California’s workforce skills through 2030, focusing on the supply and demand for workers with a bachelor’s degree. We find that the state will fall about 1.1 million college graduates short of economic demand if current trends persist—a problem we call the workforce skills gap. We project that 38 percent of all jobs will depend on workers with at least a bachelor’s degree, but only about 33 percent of workers will have one in 2030. These projections are based on recent economic trends and on forecasts that show a continued increase in the demand for highly educated workers, a demand that is not going to be met by expected increases in the supply of college graduates. So the challenge is clear: either improve educational outcomes for Californians or face a future that has relatively dim economic prospects.

Already we see evidence of strong and increasing demand for highly educated workers. In today’s labor market, workers with a bachelor’s degree have better economic outcomes than those with less education, and that advantage is at or near all-time highs. Over time, college graduates have seen lower rates of unemployment and higher wages than other workers—even through the Great Recession and certainly in the recovery—illustrating that college degrees have become increasingly valuable in California’s labor market.

Future Jobs

To assess California’s future job market, we rely on long-term occupational projections from the state’s Employment Development Department (EDD). Here, we are concerned not just with changes in the state’s overall occupational mix but also with changes in skill requirements within occupational categories. Understanding these changes helps to provide a clearer picture of where the growth in demand for college degrees is likely to occur. To do so, we look at both broad occupational categories, such as business operations, and jobs within those categories, such as marketing specialists.

The projections suggest that the mix of occupational categories in California’s labor market is not going to change drastically over the next decade or so. The fastest-growing categories will include both high and low skills. Among the ten fastest-growing categories, five require high levels of educational attainment and five do not. This means that the bifurcation of California’s occupational mix, an important component of wage inequality, is expected to continue.

Because the demand for highly educated workers within occupational categories has been growing over the past decade, even though the mix of these categories is not shifting much, we expect the economy to require a higher share of educated workers by 2030. In most occupational categories, the share of workers holding at least a bachelor’s degree is projected to increase by 2030.

These increases are projected to occur in most occupational categories, from those regarded as high skill (such as management) to those regarded as low skill (food preparation). Some of this increase will be caused by a shift toward specific occupations within broader occupational categories. But the larger shift is likely to be an increase in educational attainment within specific occupations themselves.

Business operations is a case in point. In 2000, about half of the workers in the business operations occupational category held a bachelor’s degree; by 2013, this share had increased to 60 percent. If these trends continue, 74 percent will have a bachelor’s degree in 2030—a 14 percentage point increase over 17 years. But as an overall occupational category, business operations will make up a similar share of the economy as it does today—3.0 percent in 2030, compared with 2.7 percent in 2013.

The increase in educational attainment within this occupational category is occurring because its fastest-growing specific occupations include some with high levels of education—for example, market research analysts and marketing specialists, 75 percent of whom hold at least a bachelor’s degree. In addition, some specific occupations have seen a large increase in the share of workers with college degrees—for example, the share of fundraisers with a bachelor’s degree increased from 44 percent in 2000 to 84 percent in 2013.

Overall, there are no indications that the rocky economic landscape of the recent recession has shifted the trend in demand for highly educated workers. In the past, a strong demand for highly educated workers occurred as the economy shifted toward occupational categories and industries that demanded these workers. But in the 1990s and—based on our current analysis—through the 2000s, the strong demand for highly educated workers has reflected growth in education levels within industries and occupations.

Do these projections indicate a real demand, or are they simply evidence of a trend toward overeducating the workforce? One way to distinguish between these two possibilities is to examine the wage premium paid to college workers—that is, the extra wages employers are willing to pay college workers compared with less educated workers in the same occupational category. Positive and increasing wage premiums for college-educated workers reflect the economic demand for high skills. In general, the college wage premium is large and increasing economy-wide; moreover, we find that within occupational categories, the same is generally true. College-educated workers enjoy positive and significant wage premiums within almost every occupational category. These findings indicate that the strong demand for highly educated workers is likely to continue because employers and the economy require the skills associated with more highly educated workers.

Of course, the labor market does not value all college degrees equally. For degrees in highly lucrative fields, such as engineering and computer science, the lifetime wage premium—that is, the expected present value of the gain in wages by completing college, even after accounting for college costs—can total more than $1 million; but even for degrees with the lowest economic returns, the lifetime wage premium totals more than $200,000.

Future Educational Attainment

The share of adults in the workforce with a bachelor’s degree or more will increase only slightly—about 1 percent—by 2030. To a great extent, this slow growth stems from the retirement of the numerous and very highly educated members of the baby boom generation. Today, the best-educated age group in California consists of adults age 60 to 64. By 2030, these adults will be retired.

In the past, retirees tended to be less educated and relatively few in number—and they were replaced by younger, more-numerous, and more-educated adults. In the future, this will no longer be the case. Indeed, the retirement of the baby boomers represents the first time in California’s history that such a large and well-educated generation is exiting the labor force. This loss helps to explain the size of the skills gap we see in 2030.

California is unlikely to attract enough highly educated migrants from elsewhere to close the skills gap. For a long time, the state has relied on migrants to supply employers with the college graduates they need. Until recently, more of California’s college graduates, by percentage, were born elsewhere in the United States. And since 1980, the share of college graduates from other countries has increased quickly, a reflection of the globalization of the state’s economy—and we expect this to continue. Were it not for these increases, the size of the skills gap would be even larger.

California residents are making slight improvements in educational attainment. Indeed, in 2010, for the first time in the state’s history, more of California’s college graduates were born in the state (37%) than in other states (33%) or internationally (30%). Going forward, California’s best approach to closing its skills gap will be to concentrate on improving the educational attainment of its residents.

Policy Implications

We believe that the most promising approach to closing the workforce skills gap is to concentrate on improving the educational attainment of California residents. Here, I will outline four key strategies for the state and its colleges and universities to pursue. Implementing these strategies—which should be the core of a new state plan for higher education—would require increased coordination across institutions.

First, increase access. Research shows that students are much more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree if they first enroll in a four-year college, rather than in a community college—even when we account for differences in academic preparation. This means that increasing the share of high school graduates eligible for the University of California and California State University would be an important step toward increasing the number of college graduates. It would also improve access for students from low-income families and other underrepresented groups.

Second, improve completion rates and time to degree. Despite progress by both university systems to address these issues, only 19 percent of students at CSU and 60 percent of those at UC earn a bachelor’s degree in four years. Current strategies to graduate more students more quickly should be assessed to identify which are most effective. And new approaches—such as offering colleges fiscal incentives to increase the share of students taking a full, 15-unit course load—should be considered.

Third, expand transfers to four-year colleges. Improving transfer pathways from community colleges to four-year institutions is essential because California relies heavily on its two-year institutions. Currently, the vast majority of community college students do not earn degrees or certificates. Associate degree programs guaranteeing that qualified community college students can transfer to CSU should be expanded. These programs now depend on individual agreements between specific campuses and apply only to specific majors; expanding them to include more majors and transfers to UC is likely to increase the number of students who ultimately earn bachelor’s degrees.

Finally, be smart about aid. Grant and aid programs mean that most low-income and even some middle-income students do not have to pay tuition at the state’s public colleges and universities. But other educational costs are not well covered and student debt has been rising, raising questions about whether state Cal Grants should cover more than tuition. The state should also consider increasing the size of Cal Grants to students attending private colleges that have good graduation rates and low loan-default rates.

In summary, a state plan for higher education should ensure that enough high school graduates are ready for college, enough slots are available for new college students, more community college students are able to transfer to four-year institutions, and more students complete college in four years. Of critical importance, California and its higher education institutions must strengthen access to and success in college for low-income and underrepresented students, who make up an increasing share of the state’s population. Ultimately, closing the workforce skills gap will result in a more productive economy, higher incomes, greater tax revenues, less pressure on the social safety net—and a brighter future all Californians.

Increasing On-time Graduation Rates at CSU

Just 19% of California students at California State University (CSU) campuses graduate in four years. A bill introduced this week is aimed at improving these graduation rates by addressing two commonly cited issues important to graduating on time: getting access to necessary classes and taking a full course load.

The bill would guarantee that students’ tuition is frozen at freshmen-year levels and provide priority registration for classes—as long as they take enough units to stay on track to graduate in four years and carry a certain minimum GPA. In order to graduate in 4 years, students need to average 15 units a semester (about 5 classes). However, students can take 12 units a semester (about 4 classes) and still be considered full-time by university standards and for financial aid purposes. While it does not cost any more money for students to take 15 units, many students choose to take 12 units so they can work or because they feel that 15 units would be too challenging. It’s also possible that some students just don’t know that taking only 12 units pushes them off-track to graduate on time.

Would a promise of frozen tuition be enough to cause more students to graduate in four years? After all, there has always been a financial incentive to do so. The fifth (and sixth) year of college is expensive, and later graduation also keeps student from entering the workforce full time and earning income. For example, a student starting in 2007 who graduated in 4 years would save $5,472 in tuition alone by not attending a fifth year—when including a year’s worth of room, board, books, and other related expenses, this number is closer to $20,000,and likely even more when considering the foregone earnings a student could be making during that year. Under the proposed bill, SB 1450, that student would save an additional $3,198, thanks to frozen tuition. If a vast majority of students do not finish in 4 years in light of the significant savings, would the promise of additional $3,000 in eventual savings push them to take more classes each semester?

It is possible that by highlighting near-term savings on yearly tuition the bill could convince some students to stay on track and graduate on time. How much it could move the needle for on-time graduation remains to be seen. If few students are moved to participate, the state could end up just partially subsidizing the degrees of students who were already going to finish in 4 years.

It makes sense for legislators and the higher education systems to work together to remove the barriers for on-time graduation for California’s students. This would cost students and the state less money, increase the number of CSU graduates, and makes space for more students at the university.

Video: Senator Dianne Feinstein in Conversation

Underscoring her role in three contentious policy issues, California’s senior senator spoke to a Sacramento audience last week about filling the vacancy on the US Supreme Court, the dispute between Apple and the FBI, and drought relief.

Senator Dianne Feinstein urged speedy consideration of a nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the court, saying that Senate can consider and confirm a new justice within 69 days—the average time for the process has taken in the past. She acknowledged that it would not be easy.

“I wish we could go back to the days when I first went to the Senate when the belief was that every president deserves his nominations,” she told Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, at the PPIC event.

Asked about the Apple controversy, she called on the company to reconsider its position and cooperate with the FBI to access data on a phone used by one of the San Bernardino killers. “Apple is not above the laws of the United States,” she said.

She said her position on the Senate Intelligence Committee—which occupies most of her time—gives her a perspective not shared by many on the dangers posed by terrorists.

Feinstein also detailed some of the provisions in her drought-relief bill, which would fund recycling, desalination, and water storage projects, as well as ease water trading.

She closed by describing her leadership style, saying she tries to “use the time to get things done. If I can’t do them through legislation, I’ll do them another way.”

Video: A Conversation with Legislative Leadership

At a PPIC event last week, Kevin de León, senate leader pro tem, and Chad Mayes, the Assembly Republican leader, were asked to name the top three issues the legislature should work on with the governor. Though the leaders come from different sides of the aisle, the list of issues they named before a large Sacramento audience had a lot in common. De León’s priorities began with income inequality between the coastal and inland regions, a “tale of two states.” He also listed water and making targeted investments, particularly in higher education. He went on to list a fourth issue: climate change.

Mayes named water and a lack of water infrastructure, and the many Californians left behind in the state’s economic recovery. His third issue was transportation, the focus of an ongoing special legislative session.

“Everywhere that I go in California,” he said, “I’m stuck in traffic. So we know there’s a problem.”

The leaders’ top issues dovetail with findings from the latest PPIC Statewide Survey in which Californians identify water and the economy as the most important issues for the legislature and governor to work on in 2016. 

Though De León and Mayes named similar priorities, there was much less agreement on solutions. But the two maintained a collaborative tone throughout their conversation, denounced what Mayes termed “demagoguery on the national stage,” and repeated their commitment to working together productively.

De León said the legislature can avoid being mired in bitter national political debates if leaders continue to work cooperatively to “get some real tangible victories for Californians.”

“We’re doing things very differently in the state of California,” he said.