| 来源类型 | Report |
| 规范类型 | 报告 |
| Elevating college completion | |
| Frederick M. Hess; Lanae Erickson | |
| 发表日期 | 2018-06-26 |
| 出版年 | 2018 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | Key Points Only about half of students who begin college actually complete their degree, which makes it increasingly difficult and expensive to brush the college completion problem under the rug. Reforms intended to boost college completion need to be approached with caution, designed with attention to potential consequences, and informed by due regard for the full range of outcomes that matter to taxpayers and students. We have the opportunity to seek solutions that focus not only on whether students can afford toon campus but also on whether those students willwith the education and the credential they came for. Read the full PDF. Foreword It feels like an ocean’s worth of ink has been dedicated to the rising cost of college. From press coverage to the latest public opinion polls to the drumbeat of proposals for “free college,” you could be forgiven for assuming that the only real problem with American higher education is the price tag. And cost is, indeed, a real issue. But it is hardly the only one. At least as pressing is the reality that only about half of students who begin college actually complete their degree. This yawning gap between those who enroll in higher education and those who graduate has been persistent, even as our economy shifts and increasingly makes a credential beyond high school a necessity, rather than a luxury, in the workforce. It is becoming increasingly difficult—and expensive—to brush this college completion problem under the rug. As Congress looks to reauthorize the Higher Education Act—through which taxpayers shell out about $130 billion per year in grants and loans—the completion problem deserves to be a meaningful part of the deliberations. At the same time, a single-minded focus on college completion can be unhelpful for students and taxpayers alike. As we have seen in K–12, it is possible for a focus on simple metrics to yield gamesmanship, corner cutting, or manipulation. We are all too familiar with colleges that are content to churn out watered-down degrees with little labor market value or that take care to only admit the most academically prepared students—leaving someone else to serve others for whom the path to completion will be more difficult. Reforms intended to boost college completion need to be approached with caution, designed with attention to potential consequences, and informed by due regard for the full range of outcomes that matter to taxpayers and students. Given both the importance of the problem and the need to tackle it in thoughtful, constructive ways, education scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and Third Way have recruited a talented cadre of researchers to publish this series of in-depth reports on the current college completion landscape, the major drivers of graduation rates, and the best levers for increasing completion both at individual institutions and system-wide—without spurring undesirable consequences in the process. The Chapters Ahead Balancing the role of federal and state policymakers with the actions students, families, and college administrators can take is a daunting task, but the truth is that today’s lackluster completion rates drain federal coffers and burden debt-laden dropouts. This problem is pervasive and disconcerting for both the left and the right. Even in these polarized times, this challenge presents opportunities for fruitful, bipartisan cooperation. In the first chapter, Bridget Terry Long, dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, reviews the most recently available federal data and finds substantial room for improvement at most of America’s colleges and universities. While the share of students who finish college has crept up in recent years, the gain has been modest, at best. In 2016, the overall completion rate of full-time, first-time students was 49.1 percent at four-year institutions and 38.6 percent at two-year institutions. At community colleges and other two-year public schools, the completion rate is even lower. Through her analysis, Long explains how the college dropout problem represents significant costs for students and taxpayers alike. Students who fail to complete college receive lower average earnings than comparable students who graduate, are often burdened with student debt, and experience opportunity costs from time lost while enrolled. Taxpayers, on the other hand, experience costs in wasted government subsidies, forgone tax revenue, and student loans that are less likely to be repaid. This chapter documents what we know about student-level characteristics that are typically associated with college success and what else university leaders, educators, and policymakers might do to begin improving college completion rates in America. In the second chapter, Sarah Turner, a professor of economics and education at the University of Virginia, describes the potential for federal and state policies to influence college completion. Her chapter makes clear that poor college completion rates are not “new,” nor are they the fault of one political party or presidential administration. Turner cautions would-be reformers, flagging a key challenge: Using policy to raise completion rates can invite unintended consequences that add no benefit for students or taxpayers. Clumsy or ill-conceived policy is fraught with perverse incentives, and these might lead college administrators to “game the system” without meaningfully raising the level of educational attainment. With that caution in mind, Turner reviews a series of potential policy options to improve completion rates. For example, she analyzes the recent uptick in the number of states using “performance-based funding” policies, which allocate a larger share of public subsidies to institutions with the most impressive outcome metrics. Policies like these, while implemented with the best of intentions, might simply encourage some schools to generate low-quality degrees or admit only the most academically prepared students in the first place. This example and others highlighted in the chapter illustrate how state and federal policymakers should ensure that appropriate guardrails are in place for any policy aimed at improving college completion. In the third chapter, Mark Schneider, formerly a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kim Clark of the Education Writers Association evaluate several institution-level practices aimed at improving completion rates. They identify more than 600 “failure factories”—schools that graduate less than a third of their students within six years, producing alumni who often struggle in the job market—and notable “success factories.” They then review five potential institutional practices that may help boost student completion without encouraging colleges to compromise their standards. These include providing comprehensive supports to students facing academic challenges, offering emergency grants to juniors and seniors with unmet financial need, and using data to provide better guidance to students. Notably, they also include program costs, implementation challenges, and the potential impact of related college-level initiatives aligned with these practices. In the fourth chapter, Matthew M. Chingos, director of the Urban Institute’s Education Policy Program, turns to the K–12 education system to review what can be done to improve the academic preparation of students for college. Chingos reports that a student’s academic preparation in high school is one of the strongest predictors of college degree attainment and that policymakers can do more to ensure that more students are academically prepared for college when they arrive on campus. His analysis points to a handful of high school–level initiatives that have effectively raised students’ academic readiness. For example, one carefully studied program in a Chicago school district found that students who took two algebra classes concurrently (rather than a single math class) had much higher high school graduation rates, college entrance exam scores, and college enrollment levels. Another study found that after controlling for selection bias, students who enrolled in more rigorous courses also had higher high school graduation rates and college enrollment levels. While scaling up these programs can risk creating different results than originally intended, educators should focus on these practices that enhance student readiness as part of a larger effort to increase postsecondary attainment. In the fifth chapter, Mesmin Destin, associate professor of psychology and education at Northwestern University, describes how psychological factors— including a student’s mindset, goals, and motives—can affect college completion. While postsecondary institutions vary considerably in their missions, resources, and student bodies, the findings from a growing body of research suggest that programs and initiatives aimed at raising college completion can be enhanced when they consider the unique perspectives, feelings, and psychological elements of the students at their specific schools. His careful review of the literature finds that approaches that incorporate psychological factors—such as linking classroom work to real-world aspirations and using online modules that help activate students’ motivation and sense of belonging—can improve student success in higher education. While the current research offers promising opportunities for improving completion, Destin also offers several important cautions to policymakers, including that they should avoid one-size-fits-all programs and high-stakes measurements of these psychological factors, since there is still much we do not know about how policies might adversely affect institution or student behavior. Reason for Optimism Improving the completion rate at America’s colleges and universities will be difficult work, and creating low-cost, quick-fix solutions is unrealistic. While there are no silver bullets, we know that higher education providers are already making hundreds of decisions that affect students’ experience and motivation in a way that makes it more or less likely they will succeed. Programs and policies like those discussed in the pages ahead illustrate what colleges can do to help students graduate, without compromising standards or lowering the bar for college completion. The chapters take seriously the real possibility that policy interventions aimed at improving completion can create a slew of unintended consequences for students, colleges, and taxpayers. As a final caveat, improving college completion requires a partnership between multiple stakeholders, and one of those stakeholders is students. College students must be able and willing to do the requisite work to earn a diploma and not just expect to be handed a degree. At the same time, colleges should look for ways to offer courses, support programs, and guidance services that a student might need to fully succeed. We can agree that students who are willing to do the work should complete their degrees and that taxpayers should see a return on the investment they make to help students get to and through college. We have the opportunity to seek solutions that focus not only on whether students can afford to arrive on campus but also on whether those students will leave with the education and the credential they came for. Left or right, that is a cause we can all embrace. —Frederick M. Hess and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky Read the full compilation. |
| 主题 | Education |
| 标签 | American education ; education ; Human Dignity Project ; New Skills Marketplace ; students |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/elevating-college-completion/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/206567 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Frederick M. Hess,Lanae Erickson. Elevating college completion. 2018. |
| 条目包含的文件 | ||||||
| 文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
| Elevating-College-Co（2126KB） | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
