Something has gone badly wrong at the nation's less-selective four-year public colleges, suggests a new paper from three economists. During the last 40 years, the high-school preparation of the students who enroll in those institutions has improved. And yet graduation rates at those institutions have generally stagnated or declined.
"If you want to understand the decline in college completion, it's a mistake to focus only on declines in student preparation," said Sarah E. Turner, a professor of education and economics at the University of Virginia and one of the paper's authors. "We were able to set that idea aside quite firmly."
The paper, "Why Have College Completion Rates Declined? An Analysis of Changing Student Preparation and Collegiate Resources," was published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It examines data from two major federal longitudinal studies. One covered students who graduated from high school in 1972, and the other covered students who graduated from high school in 1992.
Ms. Turner and her co-authors—John Bound, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and Michael F. Lovenheim, an assistant professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University—argue that while there was an increase in students attending college between the early 1970s and the early 1990s, almost all of the rise was absorbed by relatively unselective colleges whose financial resources were comparatively thin.
The researchers did find an increase in the number of weakly prepared students—those with low scores on the mathematics portion of the SAT and similar tests, according to the paper—who entered college. But almost all such students entered community colleges. The arrival of those students accounts for only about a third of the overall national decline in bachelor's-degree-completion rates, in the researchers' analysis.
What struck Ms. Turner and her colleagues was that relatively unselective four-year public colleges—those below the top 50 flagship institutions, in the paper's terms—actually saw modest improvements in their students' math SAT scores between 1972 and 1992, and yet college-completion rates still declined at those institutions.
Crowding at Less-Selective Colleges
"This is part of a pattern of what is known as cohort crowding," Ms. Turner said. "Think about what happens when a college sees a 20 percent increase in enrollment, but only a 10 percent increase in public subsidies, or no increase at all."
By contrast, Ms. Turner said, selective colleges have generally been immune from that kind of enrollment pressure. "When demand for a college education increases," she said, "private colleges and flagship public colleges usually don't increase enrollment. They just get more selective."
Analyzing federal data, Ms. Turner and her colleagues found that median instructional expenditures per student actually declined at less-selective public colleges between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s, moving from $5,331 to $5,102. At the top 50 flagship public colleges, meanwhile, median instructional spending grew from $7,871 to $9,663 per student during the same period. (All figures are in constant 2007 dollars.)
Similarly, the average student-faculty ratio at the less-selective four-year public colleges grew from 25.5:1 to 29.1:1 between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s, but at the flagships the ratio improved from 23.0:1 to 22.4:1.
"One of the big stories here is increased stratification," Ms. Turner said. "The most-selective institutions are gaining resources, but the picture is very different at other colleges."
Ms. Turner acknowledged that the data in this paper are relatively old (the second federal study wound down in 2000). But she said it is likely that similar patterns have continued in this decade. The continuing recession, she said, has brought a new wave of enrollment demand at precisely the same moment that most states are reducing support for public higher education.
The paper's argument broadly parallels that of Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities (Princeton University Press), a recent book that explored institutional causes of stagnant graduation rates. Other scholars, meanwhile, believe that the focus on graduation rates is misplaced, and even that too many students are attempting college in the first place.
In an e-mail message to The Chronicle on Monday, one of the authors of Crossing the Finish Line, William G. Bowen, praised the new paper for its attention to colleges' characteristics.
"This is an extremely important paper," said Mr. Bowen, who is president emeritus of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Princeton University. "There is obviously much more to be done in finding the resources that the less-selective four-year institutions, and the two-year institutions, need to help their students navigate the standard four-year program more successfully. Also, it would be helpful if these institutions focused more of their efforts on getting students through programs in a timely way."
Jane Wellman, executive director of the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity, and Accountability, said in an interview Monday that Ms. Turner's new paper is "powerful and interesting," and that it corresponds with many of the Delta Project's findings.
"At those less-selective institutions, the proportion of money spent on instructional services is going down, and the proportion of money spent on student support services is also going down," Ms. Wellman said. "Access doesn't always translate into success. We need investment strategies that can complement our attainment goals."
Comments
1. eboknows - December 08, 2009 at 06:34 am
Until universities (especially less-selective ones) place a value on what actually transpires in the classroom, retention rates will slowly continue on a downward spiral.
2. psmith31 - December 08, 2009 at 11:15 am
Peter Smith - Kaplan Higher Education
Is it possible that the classroom itself, and all the teaching/learning models which it implies, is an increasingly ineffective location to teach a changing student population? I don't buy the assertion that failure in a classroom equates with low capacity or low potential.
3. droselle - December 08, 2009 at 05:02 pm
I noted the assertion: 'By contrast, Ms. Turner said, selective colleges have generally been immune from that kind of enrollment pressure. "When demand for a college education increases," she said, "private colleges and flagship public colleges usually don't increase enrollment. They just get more selective."'
The institutional fact books of the flagship public college that I have checked indicate that increases in undergraduate enrollments since 2000 are not unusual.
4. 12019021 - December 08, 2009 at 05:50 pm
It isn't clear from the article whether the graduation rates used are the IPEDS rates. I assume it is. Therein lies a tale. I am at a less selective institution. Last year we graduated over 400 students. Our first year class is also approximately 400. Perfection! You might be surprised that our IPEDS rate is below fifty percent. IPEDS counts full time, first time, fall time starting students and follows them through to graduation if they graduate within six years at the same institution. This is the common pattern at schools with which Princeton Presidents might be most familiar. It is frequently NOT the pattern at less selective institutions where students often start as part time, or start as full time then switch to part time (taking more than six years) or transfer to other schools. If 100 students from my college transfer to a neighboring school and graduate there, and 100 students from that neighboring school transfer here and graduate here, my institution gets no IPEDS "credit" either for the students transferring out, or those transferring in to graduate. By this logic, President Barack Obama is a failure from Occidental College's point of view because he transferred out (albeit to a stellar academic career). IPEDS may be accurate, but you need to know what it is actually measuring. It might be fair to use it to compaire, say, Princeton, Brown, Cornell and the University of Virginia, but it can be very misleading to institutions serving other constituencies and different, though no less important, missions.
Rich
5. dgle6511 - December 08, 2009 at 06:53 pm
Rich --
For most of its analyses, the paper relies on (weighted) data about the several thousand students who were followed in the two federal longitudinal studies. The paper's dependent variable is whether those students earned a bachelor's degree within eight years after completing high school. The longitudinal data allowed the authors to follow these students through their various institutional transfers. So in that sense, no, the paper doesn't suffer the limitations of IPEDS completion statistics.
On the other hand, readers should be aware that Cliff Adelman -- who is known among other things for alerting the world to the limits of those IPEDS statistics -- has raised a number of criticisms of this paper. Among other things, he believes these authors weighted the data incorrectly, and that it is better to use actual transcript data from the longitudinal studies, rather than survey data. (Adelman used transcript data in a certain studies for NCES, including this one: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003394)
For more, follow the links from Sara Goldrick-Rab's post: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/College-Completion-Rates-Up/9118/
David Glenn
6. 12032881 - December 09, 2009 at 05:49 am
A major problem with this discussion is that it does not take into account other conditions that may be affecting students' capactity to successfully completet their programs. Increasing cost of education plus diminishing financial aid other than loans, along with a fairly stagnant level of income for many middle-class, lower middle-class, and working class families means that students have to work an increasing number of hours at off-campus jobs. Something has to give, and this is the result.
7. reeselibasu - December 09, 2009 at 04:29 pm
See Elyse Ashburn's article dated 12/9/09 about research on why students drop out and/or fail to persist to graduation. The most compelling reason is that they have to work, and can't handle the stress of maintaining a living and going to college. The research was sponsored by Public Agenda and the Gates Foundation, and is ongoing. The article contains a link to the report. Illuminating reading.
8. jjjcalif - December 10, 2009 at 03:32 pm
Mr. Bowen highlights a critical area in his response pointing out that the schools "need to help their students navigate the standard four-year program more successfully. Also, it would be helpful if these institutions focused more of their efforts on getting students through programs in a timely way."
This need is met by funding more advising. When advisors have time, they can work with students to take the right courseload, balance work and school, keep in touch with Professors and students to follow up on students immediately when the student struggles and, most importantly, make sure the student is taking the correct classes to graduate efficiently. Advisors help navigate.
When students find out they have taken classes that do not count towards their degree, they are frustrated and that contributes to their giving up. If students work closely with an advisor, they can take classes consistently through their college career, whether full-time, part-time or a combination, and easily graduate on time.
Instructors make sure that students are getting the knowledge but advisors are key in getting the students in the right classes. If instructors are trained as advisors, and given time in their workload to develop those relationships with students, then instructors can increase graduation rates. But, someone needs to be the "go to" person for each student.
The activity of advising is critical to increasing timely graduation and student success.