Category: PPIC Higher Education Center

Are Enough Californians Attending UC?

At the recent UC Board of Regents meeting, the regents approved a plan by Governor Brown and UC President Janet Napolitano—among other things, it freezes in-state tuition, reforms the pension system, and increases transfer student enrollment in exchange for extra funding from the state. However, it does not fund any additional California resident enrollment, suggesting that without legislative action for more funding, campuses may not increase enrollment for in-state students.

Enrollment growth for California residents at UC has slowed since the recession, while at the same time the proportion of out-of-state students has grown to an all-time high. UC officials acknowledge that out-of-state enrollment has grown as a result of statewide budget cuts. They contend that the extra tuition paid by out-of-state students enables UC to admit more California residents than it could otherwise. And even with the fast growth of out-of-state students in the UC system, California residents still make up over 80% of UC freshmen. But are enough Californians attending the UCs?

One way to answer that question is to see if UC is meeting the requirements of California’s Master Plan for Higher Education. The plan indicates that the UCs should choose from among the top 12.5% of students in the state. If we examine the proportion of California high school graduates admitted to the UC system, we find that UC admits more than 12.5% of California high school graduates. This percentage declined between 2007 and 2010 during the recession (also during the increase in out-of-state students), but it never dipped below 13%.

Let’s also consider the number of students receiving a UC education. Only 7.4 % of California’s high school graduates enroll at a UC as freshmen—far short of the 13.7 % admitted. Some students choose to attend other competitive schools, others decline to enroll at UC after being rejected from their first-choice campus, and still others may prefer a cheaper or closer-to-home option such as starting at a community college or attending a CSU. Lastly, let’s look at the number of students who are ready and eligible for UC. As the percentage of high school graduates admitted to a UC has declined, the percentage of public high school students who complete the UC eligibility requirements has grown. This comes at a time when the state needs to be producing more college graduates to meet the demands of the state’s future economy.

So, are there enough Californians in the UC system? Even with the influx of out-of-state students, the UC system is currently meeting the expectations of the Master Plan for admission. However, the combination of a growing number of UC-ready students and a low yield rate for admits suggests that a shrinking share of students who could benefit from a UC education are getting a UC education—especially if California resident enrollment does not continue to grow.

PPIC and others have suggested that the state review and revise the Master Plan. In the context of today’s debates over enrollment at the state’s universities and colleges, California’s leaders should update the goals of California’s higher education systems and work out how to meet and appropriately fund them.

Notes: (TOP CHART) University of California Office of the President. (BOTTOM FIGURE): Author’s calculations from data from the California Department of Education and University of California Office of the President.

Testimony: Improving the Cal Grant Program

PPIC researchers Hans Johnson and Kevin Cook testified before the California Student Aid Commission last week at a hearing to provide information about improving the Cal Grant program. The program provides about $1.5 billion in grants to college students in California each year and is administered by the commission. The program provides grants to state residents attending approved institutions and is the largest source of state aid to California students. Here is a summary of the testimony.

 

Rapidly increasing costs to students, low completion rates, and lack of access to four-year colleges are key challenges facing the state and the Cal Grant program. Given relatively high rates of poverty among high school graduates, grant and scholarship aid is more important than ever in making college possible for many Californians. Currently, California ranks 47th among all states in the share of high school graduates that go to four-year colleges. Only about half of California State University (CSU) students earn a bachelor’s degree within six years, and less than half of community college students earn an associate degree or vocational certificate or transfer to a four-year college.

To improve outcomes, the California Student Aid Commission should invest in what works, taking into account both efficiency and equity. One possibility would be to provide incentives for completion by providing more funding for students taking a full course load of 15 units. Students who take only 12 units per semester are currently considered full-time students but will not acquire enough units to graduate in four years. Of course, making this change might require increasing the size of grants so that students would be able to cut back on the number of hours they work at jobs.

Student outcomes might also be improved by using Cal Grants to encourage enrollment at four-year colleges. One way to achieve this would be to provide tuition, as well as a living stipend, for students eligible for the University of California and CSU. Currently, some awards for the students with the lowest incomes provide a living stipend for four years but tuition support for only three years.

More and better data is necessary to properly evaluate these and other proposals for improving student outcomes. The best way to identify effective and equitable delivery of Cal Grant aid would be to develop a statewide longitudinal data base that follows students from high school through college and into the workforce. Such a database, already developed in many other states, would allow the commission to answer additional questions that would help them understand what works—and doesn’t—to effectively target grant aid in California.

View the presentation slides

 

Locking Students Out of Our Colleges a Losing Strategy

This commentary was published on Sunday, April 12, 2015, in the San Francisco Chronicle.

High school seniors across the state are just now hearing if they will be accepted into the college of their choice. Most of those students have applied to one or more of the state’s public four-year universities and, despite meeting eligibility criteria, many will be disappointed. While this is certainly distressing for individual students and their families, this problem points to larger, troubling issues of access to and student success in California’s higher education system. The state’s public universities are not able to accommodate all of the qualified students who apply.

(Continue reading on sfchronicle.com)

Video: PPIC Statewide Survey Briefing

As discussions continue in Sacramento about drought relief, funding for higher education and transportation projects, and an extension of Proposition 30 tax increases, PPIC surveyed public opinion on these and many other topics. At a briefing last week in the capital, PPIC researcher Jui Shrestha provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

  • Two-thirds of Californians say the regional water supply is a big problem, and two-thirds say people in their part of the state are not doing enough to respond to the drought.
  • While most adults say that spending money on the maintenance of California roads, highways, and bridges is very important, there is little support for increasing the gasoline tax or vehicle registration fees to do so.
  • Half of Californians favor extending the Proposition 30 tax increases, and about a third favor making them permanent.

Delivering on the Promise of Online Education

Zócalo Public Square, which combines live events and journalism, asked PPIC senior fellow Hans Johnson and other experts to answer this question: How will technology—from massive open online courses and web-based textbooks to big data collection—change universities? Here is his response. Visit Zocalopublicsquare.org to read what others had to say.

A popular prediction is that new technology will revolutionize higher education, making traditional brick and mortar colleges obsolete. Certainly, new technology offers tremendous potential—democratizing access to college, enhancing instruction, and improving graduation rates, to name a few. But before we jump on the bandwagon of declaring a new era in higher education, we should assess the degree to which new technology can address fundamental challenges in higher education.

Perhaps the greatest challenge of all is to ensure that higher education serves as a ladder for economic and social mobility rather than simply reinforcing economic and class divides. By that standard, we can dismiss most Massive Online Open Courses offered in conjunction with the nation’s elite universities. Most of those courses are taken by people who already have a college degree, and the vast majority of students who enroll in such courses never finish them.

A different experiment in online learning, and one that serves hundreds of thousands of students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, is taking place at California’s community colleges. With over one million course enrollments, California’s community colleges are the largest public provider of online education in the country. They are the gateways to higher education for low-income and nontraditional students—those with jobs and family obligations.

At the Public Policy Institute of California, we examined student success in online courses in the state’s community colleges. In our study, we found that course completion and passage rates are substantially lower in online courses than in traditional ones, even though students in online courses tend to be more advantaged and academically prepared. Moreover, gaps in academic performance that we see among demographic groups in real-life classrooms are exacerbated in the online setting.

What these early findings demonstrate is not failure, but the need to improve both technology and the way it is used in instruction. If we can get it right at the community colleges, we can deliver on the promise of online education.

Testimony: Low-Income Students and Financial Aid

As the legislature considers a number of bills aimed at increasing access and affordability of public higher education, the state assembly’s subcommittee on education finance invited PPIC to testify this week. The focus was the unmet financial aid needs of low-income college students. Hans Johnson, PPIC senior and Bren Fellow, presented data from the recent PPIC report Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California, which details the importance of federal and state grant aid in ensuring that higher education remains a ladder of economic opportunity for all Californians.

Johnson noted that as the state has cut funding for the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), tuition has increased and grant aid has become increasingly important to help students afford college. Research has also shown that grants and scholarships help students persist in their education and enables students to focus on their coursework and complete college faster. UC and CSU remain less expensive options for low-income students in terms of “net price”—the cost of attending college after accounting for federal, state, and institutional aid—than non-profit and for-profit private colleges. However, students whose family incomes are $30,000 or less still pay nearly a quarter of their incomes, or $8,000 per year, to attend a public four-year college.

Improving college access and completion is vital to California’s economic well-being, and aid for students has become increasingly necessary. The legislature’s attention to this issue comes at a time when 60% of California high school students qualify for free and reduced price lunch and three-quarters of California’s low-income college freshmen are enrolled in a UC or CSU.

Commentary: Obama’s Community College Plan No Panacea

This commentary was published today by the Washington Post.

President Obama’s proposal to make community colleges free is a valiant effort to address the rising demand for skilled workers throughout the nation and to improve college access for low-income students. As states consider his proposal, they would be wise to look to California . . .

(Continue reading on washingtonpost.com.)

Dividing California’s Higher Education Pie

The tuition increase recently approved by the University of California Regents has ignited a debate about how the state allocates money for higher education. A brief look at the history of state funding can provide some much-needed perspective.

Each higher education system—UC, the California State University, and the community colleges—receives substantial funding from the state. Most of the remaining funds for instruction come from tuition paid by students. (In this analysis, we look at allocations from the state General Fund and property taxes so that we can compare institutions across time.)

Since 1965, the share of higher education funding provided directly by the state has shifted from the four-year systems to the community colleges. In the mid-1980s, the community colleges received about a third of the state allocations to public higher education institutions. In 2014‒15, the community colleges got more than half of the pie. Meanwhile, the share allocated to CSU and especially UC has been shrinking. UC’s share fell from 38% in 1965 to 24% in 2014‒15, and CSU’s share declined from 25% to 22%. The governor’s proposed 2015‒16 budget includes a funding increase of $843 million to the state’s public colleges and universities—71% ($600 million) of which would go to the community colleges.

The large increase in state allocations to community colleges is linked to increased enrollment. But enrollment has increased just as much at UC and CSU. Indeed, on a full-time equivalent basis, UC, CSU, and the community colleges each serve about the same share of the state’s public higher education students today as they did 50 years ago. So what explains the shift in the share of funding from UC and CSU to the community colleges?

The short answer is Proposition 98.

After Proposition 13 passed in 1978, the state’s community colleges—which unlike UC and CSU relied partly on property taxes—saw a sharp reduction in their share of state and local support. Ten years later, voters passed Proposition 98, which guaranteed K–12 schools and community colleges a minimum percentage of the General Fund and property tax revenue. Proposition 98 guarantees that K–12 schools and the community colleges get about 40% of these allocations—and about a tenth of that share goes to the community colleges. Some have argued that Proposition 98 acts as a funding ceiling for K–12 schools and community colleges, but it also serves as a floor.

UC and CSU lack the same funding protection. While many budget areas outside of higher education are at least partially protected by dedicated funding streams, court orders, or matching federal funds, UC and CSU are vulnerable when state revenues decline. The universities have faced disproportionately large cuts in their general fund allocations during times of economic hardship. From this vantage point, a funding floor—even one that doubles as a ceiling—is preferable to a funding drop-off.

The three higher education systems also receive indirect forms of state support such as Cal Grants, fee waivers, and middle-class scholarships. Grant aid has increased for students at all institutions of higher education in California. Our best estimates suggest that community college students receive slightly more of these state funds (41% of the total in 2011‒12), than UC students (40%) and much more than CSU students (18%).

The debate over higher education funding could benefit from a clearer understanding of how the pie is divided. But the most important issue for the state’s young people is that the pie is not keeping pace with demand. Our four-year colleges have record numbers of applicants and the shares of students who are academically qualified to attend them have increased. The future prosperity of Californians and their state depends on access to higher education. To address these issues, policymakers need to focus on improving vocational programs and pathways from community colleges to four-year colleges and improving access and enrollment at UC and CSU.

Notes (TOP FIGURE): 2012-13 to 2014-15 numbers are from the governor’s budget; earlier data is from the California Postsecondary Education Commission. We include property tax allocations which are a component of the state’s obligation to community colleges pursuant to Proposition 98.

What the Unemployment Rate Doesn’t Show Us

California’s unemployment rate is 7.2%, down from 8.4% one year ago and from California’s peak of 12.4% in 2010. California is adding jobs faster than the nation as a whole and now has more jobs than before the recession. Also, the ratio of employment to population is slowly increasing, a sign that more people are reentering the labor force. However, behind these oft-cited statistics, the picture is more complicated.

While California’s economy is improving, the recovery has not been strong or fast enough to keep up with the growth in California’s working-age population. Additionally, the recovery has been uneven across sectors and metro areas, and the unemployment rate is still higher than it was before the recession began. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California has the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation—only Mississippi and the District of Columbia have higher rates. In numerical terms, 1.35 million Californians are looking for work—and more than 35% of them have been looking for at least six months.

High as it is, the unemployment rate does not account for the 7% of California adults who are underemployed—working part-time when they’d rather work full-time. Nor does it count “discouraged and marginally attached” workers—those who have stopped looking for work because, for example, they think there are no jobs available or they don’t have the skills for available jobs. When discouraged and underemployed workers are added to the ranks of unemployed, California’s rate of un- and underemployment (or labor underutilization,” the term used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) comes to 15.4%—8.2 points higher than the official unemployment rate. In fact, California’s underutilization rate is the second highest in the country (only Nevada’s is higher). Based on underemployment rates, we know that growth is needed not just in the number of jobs but also the number of full-time jobs.

Education is the most important factor in determining who is employed—and fully employed. Workers with college degrees are less likely to be unemployed, underemployed, or to have stopped looking for work. These workers fared better during the recession, an indication that education can be a buffer against the bust cycles of our economy. And education is likely to be increasingly relevant in our future economy: more than two-thirds of new jobs over the next 10 years or so will require at least some college training.

State and federal policymakers are making some investments in training resources for California’s workforce—the California Career Pathways Trust and the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act are two good examples. The challenge is to do more to ensure that current and future workers are trained for the jobs of both today and tomorrow.

California’s Future Challenges and Opportunities

PPIC hosted a day-long series of conversations this week about creating a better future for our state and highlighting the choices we need to make today to do so. After a keynote address by Nancy McFadden from the governor’s office, panelists from government, business, and philanthropy discussed California’s challenges and opportunities before a large audience in Sacramento and online. They tackled difficult topics, such as improving economic opportunity and increasing citizen engagement in government. And they discussed ways the state can build on its strengths—an improving economy, a diverse population, and a history of reform and innovation.

We will post videos of all of the sessions soon. In the meantime, we want to share the opening remarks prepared by PPIC researchers. They set the context each session:

We hope their insights will pique your interest and inspire you to watch the conference videos when they become available.