| 摘要 | Key Points
A key challenge for higher education reformers is using policy to provide incentives for college completion without generating unintended consequences.
Clumsy or ill-conceived policy is fraught with perverse incentives for students and college administrators, who could become inclined to “game the system” without meaningfully raising the level of educational attainment in America.
State policymakers have a unique responsibility for oversight in the public sector because market forces will typically not generate enough pressure for low-quality schools to close. Policy should protect the interests of students, particularly those who may have the least experience with higher education.
Read the full PDF.
Executive Summary
Poor college completion rates in America are not “new,” nor are they the fault of one political party or presidential administration. College attainment is a complex process with many institutional actors, types of students, and outside entities. Crafting federal and state policies to raise college completion rates may be an equally complex process, as Sarah Turner notes in this report, but it need not be a partisan battle. A key challenge for higher education reformers is using policy to raise completion rates while avoiding the unintended consequences that top-down reform invites. Clumsy or ill-conceived policy is fraught with perverse incentives for students and college administrators, who could become inclined to “game the system” without meaningfully raising the level of educational attainment in America.
With that caution in mind, Turner reviews a series of potential policy options to improve completion rates. One of the most common themes across higher education research is that money matters, but how our limited public resources should be spent is less clear-cut. One approach, used across 32 states, ties a portion of public subsidies to completion rates, with the most successful institutions receiving a larger share of public funding. However, it is uncertain how performance-based funding policies affect overall completion rates since these policies might simply encourage some schools to generate low-quality degrees or only admit the most academically prepared students in the first place. As Turner explains, a better approach incorporates multiple outcome metrics in performance-based funding formulas, which can lessen the incentives for institutions to distort behavior to a single output measurement.
At the national level, the surest way policymakers can affect college completion is through Title IV programs—such as Pell Grants, work study, and subsidized student loans—although, similar to performance-based funding policies, this has a large potential to distort institutional behavior and not necessarily improve educational offerings. Turner’s report highlights how state and federal policymakers should ensure that there are appropriate guardrails in place for any policy aimed at elevating college completion.
—Frederick M. Hess and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky
Introduction
The problem of stagnant college completion rates is not new to the 21st century. The low levels of college completion observed today are similar to those observed a quarter century ago.1 There is no single cause of low rates of college completion, nor will there be a simple “magic bullet” policy solution. The challenge is persistent and complex, while the returns to increasing college completion are substantial.
The consequences of low college completion rates are magnified in an environment with high economic returns for those who complete college.2 The wage premium associated with collegiate attainment has increased markedly in recent decades. Compared to a worker with no more than a high school degree, the advantage in earnings for a college graduate has increased from about 46 percent in 1973 to about 82 percent in 2016. Those with “some college” without a degree earn only slightly more than high school graduates.3 Looking at the broader picture, the differences in collegiate attainment by family income may limit long-term upward mobility in the US and exacerbate trends toward increased income inequality.
Read the full report.
Notes |
