Discussion 6
Higher Education System
a. Introduction
Higher education 1 is a complex field characterized by dramatic growth over
the last several decades, various types of public and private institutions, a tradition of
autonomy, and numerous expectations. It is no longer a system just for the elite or the
wealthy; it is theoretically open to all who are interested and qualified. This does not
mean there is equal access yet, as evidenced by the various statistics about who
enrolls in higher education and completes a degree. Yet, more people than ever are
attending. Ref lecting this dichotomy is a recent survey which found that 55% of
respondents (in a random sample of about 1,000 people) believe college is necessary
for a person to be successful in today’s workforce, up from 31% of respondents in
2000. However, only 29% of respondents believe that the vast majority of people who
are qualified to go to college have the opportunity to do so, down from 45% in 2000
(Immerwahr & Johnson, 2009). Although there are myriad policy issues surrounding
higher education, including access to college, many believe that the American system
of higher education “remains the envy of the world” will outline the governance and
finance structures of today’s higher education landscape as well as present some
salient policy issues. The complexity of the field cannot be understated—increasing
numbers and diversity of students and decreasing financial support are coupled with
calls for greater institutional and system efficiency and effectiveness.
There are 4,724 institutions of higher education in the United States. About
3,000 of these are four-year institutions and 1,700 are two-year institutions. The
majority of institutions (3,099) are privately controlled and 1,625 are public
institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The degree-granting
status of the institution and whether it is publicly or privately controlled are just two
of several institutional variations. A privately controlled institution can be not-for-
profit, such as Harvard University, or for-profit, such as the University of Phoenix. An
institution can be research intensive, with an emphasis on external grant funding,
graduate education, and faculty publications, or it can be open access, with a focus on
helping marginally prepared students successfully complete a college degree. A
college can focus on liberal arts or career and technical education. It can be in the
middle of an urban city or in the idyllic countryside. Some institutions now have
100,000 or more students, whereas others enroll just a thousand or so students.
Interestingly, the institution of higher education with the greatest number of enrolled
students is the University of Phoenix with over 200,000 students, down from its peak
of 475,000 students in 2010.
The selectivity of institutions varies by sector. The overwhelming majority
(87%) of four-year colleges admit 50% or more of their applicants, and 90% of two-
year institutions have no admissions criteria. Almost 75% of private, for-profit
institutions (two- and four-year) have no admissions criteria, while only 18% of
public, fouryear institutions are open access (National Center for Education Statistics,
2015). One policy issue surrounding selectivity is which students are accepted where.
For example, are low-income or racial minorities underrepresented at elite institutions
and overrepresented at open access institutions? This matters because elite institutions
boast higher completion rates and greater perceived employment prospects (e.g., jobs
and salaries). Dat a provided throughout will shed some light on this question, but it is
an area worthy of in-depth study.
Overall, in 2014, Harvard University accepted just 5.9% of 35,000 applicants.
Stanford University accepted 5.07% of its applicants. Other top-tier schools were not
as selective. For example, the University of Michigan accepted 32% of its applicants
and Notre Dame accepted 21%. What these rates do not show is the percentage of the
applicant pool qualified for admittance to these schools. Although from year to year it
seems that admission rates are shrinking, it isn’t because of greater numbers of
students applying to selective schools or fewer spots at these schools. Rather, the
seemingly shrinking admissions rates are causing more students to apply to more
schools, so the pool of applicants at each school is growing. It is estimated that 80%
of top students get into at least one top school.
Almost 40% of working adults aged 25 to 64 have a two- or four-year
postsecondary degree (“Quality Counts Report,” 2014). Greater numbers and
percentages of students than ever before are matriculating from high school to
college. In 1960, only 45% of high school graduates enrolled in college within 12
months. Today, 66% of high school graduates enroll in college (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015), ranking the U.S. in ninth place among economically
similar countries (OECD, 2014). The data also show that females enter college at a
higher rate than males, although the most recent data show that the gap is closing
somewhat. Students from wealthy families enter at a rate 30 percentage points higher
than high school graduates from low-income families. Race also plays a role in
whether a high school completer attends college; 81% of Asian high school graduates
enroll in college compared to 67% of White students, 57% of Black students, and
66% of Hispanic students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Although
disparities are evident, rates for all groups are increasing over time. It is important to
recognize that these figures only count students who made it to high school
graduation and not the entire age cohort. In looking at the full age cohort, in 1967,
only 25.5% of 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in degree-granting institutions.
The statistics provided by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
offer valuable insights into the trends and dynamics of higher education enrollment in
the United States, highlighting both the magnitude of student participation and the
diversity of institutional settings. The data indicates that as of 2013, the overall
college enrollment rate stood at 40%, reflecting the proportion of young adults aged
18 to 24 who were enrolled in degree-granting institutions.
The figure of 40% underscores the significant strides made in expanding
access to higher education over the years, with a growing number of students pursuing
postsecondary education as a pathway to academic, career, and personal advancement.
This trend is indicative of the increasing importance of higher education credentials in
today's knowledge-based economy, where advanced skills and knowledge are
essential for success in the workforce and society.
Moreover, the breakdown of enrollment between public and private degree-
granting institutions provides further insights into the diverse landscape of higher
education in the United States. According to the NCES data, as of fall 2013, there
were 14.9 million students enrolled at public institutions and 5.7 million students
enrolled at private institutions. This distribution reflects the variety of options
available to students, ranging from large public universities and community colleges
to small private colleges and universities, each offering distinct missions, programs,
and learning environments.
Public institutions, including state universities, community colleges, and
technical schools, often serve as accessible and affordable pathways to higher
education for a broad range of students, including those from low-income
backgrounds, first-generation college students, and adult learners. These institutions
play a critical role in expanding educational opportunity and promoting social
mobility by providing affordable tuition, flexible scheduling, and comprehensive
support services.
On the other hand, private institutions, including liberal arts colleges, research
universities, and specialized institutions, offer unique educational experiences
characterized by smaller class sizes, close faculty-student interactions, and specialized
programs and resources. While private institutions may have higher tuition costs
compared to public institutions, they often provide generous financial aid packages
and scholarships to make education more affordable for students from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds.
The enrollment figures also reflect the growing importance of online and
distance education in higher education, with many institutions offering flexible and
accessible learning options to meet the needs of non-traditional students, working
professionals, and adult learners. The proliferation of online degree programs,
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), and hybrid learning models has expanded
access to higher education beyond traditional brick-and-mortar campuses, allowing
students to pursue education at their own pace and on their own terms.
Overall, the NCES data underscores the continued significance of higher
education as a pathway to opportunity, mobility, and advancement in the United
States. By understanding enrollment trends and patterns, policymakers, educators, and
stakeholders can better respond to the evolving needs and aspirations of students and
ensure that all individuals have access to high-quality educational opportunities that
enable them to reach their full potential and contribute to society.
Hopefully, postsecondary enrollment leads to degree attainment. The number
of degrees has increased over time, as has the percentage of degrees earned by
women. In 1920, over 48,000 bachelor’s degrees were awarded (34% to women), over
4,000 master’s degrees were awarded (30% to women), and 615 doctoral degrees
were awarded (15% to women). In 2011–12, 1.8 million bachelor’s degrees were
awarded (57% to women), 754,000 master’s degrees were awarded (60% to women),
and 170,000 doctoral degrees were awarded (51% to women). In addition, slightly
over 1 million associate’s degrees were awarded in 2011–12 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015).
Today, there are 1.5 million faculty members among the variety of higher
education institutions. Slightly more than 50% of these faculty members are full-time
employees and slightly less than 50% are female. Of the 1.5 million faculty, 968,000
(64%) are in public institutions, 449,000 (30%) are in private nonprofit institutions,
and 128,000 (9%) are in private for-profit institutions. Over 1.1 million faculty
members work in four-year institutions while under 400,000 are in two-year
institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).
Although there are wide variations in salary by what type of institution the
faculty member works at (e.g., faculty at research universities tend to earn more) and
by the rank of the individual professor (e.g., full professors tend to earn more than
assistant professors or lecturers), it is notable that faculty average salaries have not
made dramatic gains over the past 40 years. In 2012–13, full-time faculty members on
nine-month contracts (no summer teaching), on average, earned $77,301, up slightly
from $69,494 in 1975–76 (in constant 2012–13 dollars). Breaking this number down
by control of the institution (public versus private) shows that faculty salaries at
public institutions moved only slightly, whereas salaries at private institutions saw a
$20,000 leap over the past 40 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).
Some higher education faculty have the opportunity to earn tenure. According
to the American Association of University Professors 2 , “tenure, briefly stated, is an
arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of
probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible
circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee.” Traditionally,
tenure helps to preserve academic freedom—the ability of a faculty member to
conduct research in the pursuit of truth, absent any political or other interference. At
public four-year institutions with a tenure system, 65% of full-time faculty have
tenure. This is down from 70% in 1993–94. For private nonprofit institutions, 44% of
full-time faculty have tenure, down from 50% in 1993–94 (College Board, 2014a).
b. Governance
The variety of higher education institutions necessitates a variety of
governance structures at state and institutional levels. Although the federal
government does not necessarily govern higher education given states’ constitutional
authority over education, it still exercises a substantial amount of influence. An
eminent higher education scholar defines governance as “the structures and processes
through which institutional participants interact with and influence each other and
communicate with the larger environment” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 4). There are several
ways in which the governance structures of higher education institutions differ from
other organizations (Birnbaum, 1988). First, rather than a mixture of professional and
nonprofessional employees, the organization is primarily composed of highly
educated professionals both at the faculty and administrative levels.
Sometimes faculty do not always identify themselves with the institution, but
rather they feel more loyalty to their fields (e.g., biology, political science) and
colleagues in that field around the country and world. While the two previous
differences are more likely to occur at research-focused higher education institutions,
the next two differences occur at all types of institutions. Faculty are most often
organized into colleges (e.g., the college of education) and departments (e.g., the
educational leadership department). The colleges and departments have their own
hierarchies and goals and priorities, and this leads to a governance structure of nesting
subunits. Again, rather than allegiance to the larger organization, faculty typically
collaborate with faculty in their department or college, and important personnel
decisions (hiring, promotions, salaries) are often handled at that level as well. Finally,
institutions of higher education are saddled with many important, but sometimes
conflicting, goals (Birnbaum, 1988). For instance, institutions are expected to increase
access to college while maintaining or increasing the quality of instruction and
outcomes.
Even with these governance issues, something is still going well, as U.S.
institutions of higher education are generally respected around the world. Several U.S.
research universities appear in any type of worldwide institutional rankings. So, as
Birnbaum (1988) questions, how can American institutions of higher education be
both poorly run (in his opinion) and highly effective? The answer lies in the
institutions’ complexity.
Similar to early learning and K–12 education, the federal government exerts
influence over higher education through a variety of means. Given lack of direct
authority per the U.S. Constitution, there are two primary ways that the federal
government influences higher education: providing funding for students and research
and “setting, interpreting, and enforcing civil rights legislation that affects colleges
and universities” (Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005, p. 163). In fact, the federal
government’s expenditures on student aid and research outpace state expenditures in
those areas.
There are several exhaustive and detailed histories of higher education that
outline the federal government’s involvement with colleges and universities
throughout the history of the United States. This section will highlight just a couple of
key periods and initiatives to provide context for the federal government’s
involvement in higher education policy today.
Arguably, the first significant federal higher education initiative was the
passage of the Morrill Land-Grant College Act of 1862. This act provided states
grants of land to establish colleges that focused on practical arts such as agriculture,
engineering, and home economics. Initiated by Congressman Morrill from Vermont
and signed by President Lincoln, the purported reasons for the legislation included
“democratization of higher education; the development of an educational system
deliberately planned to meet utilitarian ends through research and public service as
well as instruction; and a desire to emphasize the emerging applied sciences,
particularly agricultural science and engineering” (Williams, 1991, p. 1). The act did
not instigate land-grant colleges’ immediate success, as it only provided for grants of
land, not operating funds. Between 1862 and 1887, all 37 states at the time established
a land-grant college or planned to do so, but enrollments were small and the
organizations were tenuous. Two subsequent federal acts bolstered these colleges. The
Hatch Act of 1887 provided funding for agricultural experiment stations that were
attached to the land-grant colleges, and the 1890 Morrill Act provided the needed
annual federal funding for general academic programs at the land-grant colleges
(Williams, 1991). Many of these original land-grant colleges retain their land-grant
missions and are the flagship institutions of their respective states, including the
University of California, the University of Florida, and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. These institutions are some of the largest and highest ranked public
colleges in the U.S. and the world that simultaneously provide services to their state.
The period after World War II was one of great expansion and diversity for
higher education, and it happened somewhat by accident. The Serviceman’s
Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the GI Bill) was developed as the
federal government considered how to successfully integrate returning veterans into
the new the post-war economy (Thelin, 2004). The act gave veterans college tuition
assistance and living expenses. Government leaders’ projections of how many
veterans would utilize this benefit were very low. However, “by 1950, of the fourteen
million eligible veterans, more than two million, or 16 percent, had opted to enroll in
postsecondary education” (Thelin, 2004, p. 363). Women veterans enrolled at a higher
rate than male veterans (30% versus 18%). Results of this major expansion included
significant growth, sometimes doubling, of college enrollments; increased federal
reliance, and hence growth, of accrediting agencies to certify institutions eligible to
receive GI benefits; and increasing use of standardized tests for admissions purposes
as colleges struggled to sort through the deluge of applicants (Thelin, 2004). The
growth of the higher education sector did not happen solely on idyllic, moss-strewn,
four-year colleges. The transition to mass higher education led to the growth of new
institutional forms such as community colleges and trade schools. “One estimate was
that on the average, a new public community campus opened each week during the
decade starting in 1960” (Thelin, 2004, p. 300). The GI Bill’s impact can be seen in
the growth of the total number of students enrolled in postsecondary education over
the years. In 1939, a little less than 1.5 million students were enrolled in college. In
1949 this grew to 2.7 million, and by 1970, 7.9 million were enrolled (Thelin, 2004).
Also after World War II, President Truman established a commission on higher
education in 1946 to examine “the functions of higher education in our democracy
and the means by which they can best be performed” (Thelin, 2004, p. 268, quoting
the commission report). This was the first time a U.S. president “deliberately
extended federal inquiry into nationwide educational issues” (Thelin, 2004, p. 268).
The commission produced many far-reaching proposals, many of which were not
adopted by President Truman but were adopted by succeeding presidential
administrations. These included increased governmental support for higher education,
the need for greater racial integration and diversity within higher education, and more
attention to community colleges as access points into America’s higher education
system (Thelin, 2004). In 1965, President Johnson extended the federal government’s
reach into higher education with the passage of the Higher Education Act (HEA).
Among other things, this act provided research grants to institutions, need-
based aid for students, and support for teacher preparation at institutions of higher
education (Thelin, 2004). The 1972 HEA amendments were significant given the
inclusion of Title IX, which “prohibited discrimination based on sex in any
educational program” that received federal support and/or funding. Although Title IX
covers all instances of gender discrimination, it is primarily associated with athletics,
as that is where the greatest instances of gender discrimination occurred (Thelin,
2004). The 1998 HEA amendments included an emphasis on preparation for college
and initiated the GEAR UP program (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs) (Thelin, 2004). Grants are awarded to states and
partnerships to provide services to high poverty middle and high schools. In fact,
activities must start no later than with seventh grade cohorts. In fiscal year 2014, 128
GEAR UP awards were made, totaling over $300 million dollars and serving over half
a million students.
The HEA was due for reauthorization in 2014 and it is still pending. The
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions made significant
movement toward reauthorization in the spring of 2015, particularly through
leadership of its chair Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN). The committee’s focus for
reauthorization is improving quality and innovation through removing unnecessary
and burdensome regulations on institutions of higher education (Stratford, 2015a). A
bipartisan segment of the committee commissioned a report on federal higher
education regulations from 16 higher education leaders and the American Council on
Education. One of the committee co-chairs, Nicholas Zeppos, president of Vanderbilt
University, stated at a committee hearing “that an internal study of his institution
showed that federal red tape relating to higher education cost the university $14
million annually” (Stratford, 2015a).
These described federal initiatives laid the foundation for future presidential
endeavors into higher education policy. The remainder of this section will touch on a
few highlights of President Obama’s higher education policy agenda. Arguably
undergirding all other initiatives is the president’s focus on college completion and
attainment. Until recently, average four-year graduation rates of 50% (and lower for
some groups of students) were the norm. Success in higher education was—and is to a
certain extent still—seen as the responsibility of the student. The vast majority of
college students are 18 years or older, and many are living apart from parents and
guardians for the first time. In the eyes of the law, at least, they are adults. Times have
changed, and society seems to be recognizing that adolescence lasts beyond
attainment of legal adulthood. Couple this with an economic imperative to increase
national and state education attainment rates, and more pressure is placed on
institutions of higher education to help students succeed.
President Obama's ambitious goal, outlined in his 2009 address to a joint
session of Congress, aimed to position the United States as a global leader in college
completion by the year 2020. This initiative underscored the administration's
commitment to expanding access to higher education, promoting educational
attainment, and ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to pursue
postsecondary credentials and succeed in the workforce and society.
At the time of President Obama's announcement, the United States had long
held a reputation as a world leader in higher education, with a strong tradition of
innovation, research, and academic excellence. However, over the years, other
countries had made significant strides in expanding their higher education systems
and increasing college attainment rates, leading to a narrowing of the gap between the
U.S. and its international counterparts.
The rise of global competition in higher education, coupled with demographic
shifts, economic changes, and technological advancements, had reshaped the
landscape of postsecondary education worldwide. Countries such as Canada, South
Korea, and Japan had emerged as leaders in college completion rates, surpassing the
United States in the percentage of adults with some form of postsecondary credential,
whether it be a degree, certificate, or other credential.
The reasons behind this shift in international rankings are multifaceted and
complex, reflecting a combination of factors such as differences in educational
systems, policies, investments, cultural attitudes towards education, and
socioeconomic conditions. In some countries, government-led initiatives to expand
access to higher education, improve graduation rates, and enhance workforce
readiness had yielded significant gains in college completion rates and educational
attainment levels.
Additionally, the increasing globalization of higher education, including the
rise of international student mobility, transnational education partnerships, and cross-
border collaboration, had contributed to greater competition and cooperation among
countries in the higher education arena. As a result, countries had become more
interconnected and interdependent in their efforts to attract talent, drive innovation,
and meet the demands of a rapidly evolving global economy.
In response to these trends, the Obama administration launched a series of
initiatives and reforms aimed at bolstering college access, affordability, and
completion rates in the United States. These efforts included expanding federal
financial aid programs, investing in community colleges and workforce development,
promoting college readiness and success initiatives, and supporting innovative
approaches to teaching, learning, and credentialing.
While progress had been made towards increasing college completion rates in
the United States, the goal of leading the world in this metric by 2020 remained
elusive. Challenges such as persistent achievement gaps, rising tuition costs, student
debt burdens, and changing labor market demands continued to pose barriers to
college access and success for many Americans. Nevertheless, the Obama
administration's emphasis on higher education as a national priority had raised
awareness of the importance of college completion and spurred efforts to improve
educational outcomes and opportunities for all individuals.
As the United States looks towards the future, the goal of leading the world in
college completion remains a compelling aspiration and a call to action for
policymakers, educators, employers, and stakeholders across the nation. By
redoubling efforts to expand access, enhance affordability, and improve student
outcomes in higher education, the United States can strive to reclaim its position as a
global leader in educational attainment and ensure that all individuals have the
opportunity to achieve their full potential and contribute to a thriving, knowledge-
based society.
The president’s goal means that the U.S. would need to increase its
educational attainment rate from 39% to 56%, requiring an additional 8 million
associate’s and bachelor’s degrees. This assumes all other competing countries’ rates
will remain static, which will certainly not happen because South Korea, which is
ranked higher than the U.S., has already increased its rate. As of 2015, five years until
the goal deadline, the U.S. had only increased its national ranking by one place to
11th overall. Regardless of the ranking, the attainment rate did increase from 39% to
44% over six years, which is not a small feat. Other successes include 10% more
students enrolled at four-year colleges than in 2009 and a 15% increase in the number
of degrees conferred (Field, 2015). While the goal to increase educational attainment
is laudable for both economic and individual growth reasons, some may ask whether
international rankings are important given the inability to rely on the proffered data.
For instance, some countries’ populations are decreasing each year (low birth
rates), which gives them an advantage in calculating the percentage of citizens with a
degree (Hauptman, 2013). Further, some countries factor vocational certificates into
their count, but the U.S. does not. Whether or not being number one in the world is
important, it does seem to make sense for colleges to help those who enroll to succeed
rather than passively to monitor matriculation. Many major foundations and
organizations, such as the Lumina Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, Complete College America, and the National Governors Association,
agree with President Obama and have devoted significant amounts of money and
other support for states and higher education institutions to develop policy and
programs geared toward increasing completion and attainment.
College completion rates are anticipated to be part of President Obama’s
college rating initiative. Public transparency of institutional information was a
recommendation of U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings’s 2006
commission on the future of higher education. Transparency and accountability at all
levels of education, including higher education, have, to a great extent, become
bipartisan issues, so even though Secretary Spellings served under Republican
President George W. Bush, President Obama continued and furthered this policy. The
goals of President Obama’s current ratings plan go beyond consumer transparency
and tie financial support to college performance on a defined set of metrics; challenge
states to fund institutions based on performance; and hold students and colleges
accountable for making progress toward a degree (Mangan & Supiano, 2014).
Although eventually expected, relative weighting was not yet assigned to the
metrics, and there was no indication yet as to how similar institutions will be grouped.
The first ratings are scheduled to be released in the fall of 2015. There is much
consternation about the rating system, particularly about how to provide accurate,
relevant, and comparable information on institutions that are so diverse. The president
of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities likely summed up many
stakeholders’ beliefs, noting that the extensive amount of time it took the U.S.
Department of Education to come up with the initial draft of the ratings “seems to
support the long-held belief by many in higher education that while a college-rating
system is admirable in theory, it is not feasible to create metrics that definitively
assess the quality of so many institutions across the country” (Field, 2014). Even
without the rankings, there remain several avenues of webbased transparency,
including two federal initiatives: the College Navigator, which is intended to help
students pick a college, and the College Scorecard, which provides information on
costs of college, graduation rates, student loans, and employment statistics.
Responsibility for the provision of higher education rests with the states. Until
about 50 years ago, states offered minimal oversight and coordination of public
institutions. Since then, states have increasingly organized their public institutions of
higher education into systems (Johnstone, 2013). Some states have one system for all
institutions, while others divide technical, two-year, four-year, and research
institutions into two or more systems. Systems are generally structured as governing
or coordinating agencies. A couple of states utilize planning agencies, which have
virtually no authority over institutions, but rather collect and disseminate information
about higher education to state leaders (McGuinness, 2005). Governing boards
centralize authority over state public higher education institutions into a state-level
corporate body, whereas coordinating boards “merely provide an interface between
the state government and the governing boards of the state’s systems and individual
colleges and universities”. Governing boards also have more autonomy from other
state actors than coordinating boards and assume greater operational authority over
institutions, including hiring the institution’s president. Seventeen states utilize
governing systems and 31 have coordinating agencies.
In 42 states, the governor appoints the majority of higher education agency
board members (Education Commission of the States, 2014). The previous paragraph
provides some “bright-line” ways to categorize state higher education governance
systems, but it is important to note that the governance structures of any two states are
not exactly the same (McLendon & Ness, 2003) because state history, culture,
politics, and policies contexts vary considerably. The type of higher education
structure employed by the state has been shown to affect higher education policies.
For example, Knott and Payne (2004) found that states with the highest state
regulation of institutions had the lowest tuition rates, research funding, and
productivity (as measured by the number of faculty-published articles).
Beyond state and/or institutional board appointment powers, governors can
influence higher education through the budgeting process and creation of policy
initiatives. Governors often choose to highlight important policy initiatives in annual
state of the state addresses. In an analysis of 48 gubernatorial state-of-the-state
speeches from 2015, 27 governors highlighted the role of higher education regarding
workforce development, 23 governors focused on postsecondary funding and
affordability, 11 governors either praised dual enrollment programs or called for
greater alignment between K–12 and higher education, and 6 governors specifically
called for higher state postsecondary educational attainment rates (American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2015). Higher education is certainly a
prominent agenda item for current state governors.
As with all policy areas, state legislatures hold ultimate authority in voting
something into law (unless the governor wields a veto that is not overturned). This is
true of higher education policy as well. Governors, state agencies, and legislatures
often consider whether a policy initiative can be just that—an initiative—or must be
written into law. For example, state college completion policies are sometimes
initiatives of the state higher education agency and/or the governor, and sometimes
they are initiatives of the legislature and are written into law (e.g., college president
evaluations being based on college completion rates could be an agency initiative or
law). Often, collaboration between all stakeholders and leaders helps decide what
policies need to be administered, regulated, or legislated.
It is also important to note the role of private higher education institutions
within state systems. The limits to state interference in private college governance
were settled long ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward (1819), when the court ruled that the New Hampshire state legislature
could not unilaterally amend the college’s corporate charter. Still, although they are
not part of the public system and are protected by law as private corporations, states
provide some regulation for private institutions, in part to protect citizens and
employers from institutions that take student money but provide little value in return
(e.g., diploma mills).
Unlike early learning and K–12 education, it is important to discuss
institutional-level governance in the context of American higher education because
institutions maintain a good amount of autonomy. Depending on the state higher
education governance structure, public institutions may have an institutional-level
governing board, an advisory board, or no board at all. Private institutions utilize
some type of institutional board to govern the organization and oversee the president.
A survey of public governing boards—institutional and system level—shows a
relative lack of diversity. Boards, on average, are overwhelmingly male; only 28% of
board members are female. Only 23% of board members are racial or ethnic
minorities, and 69% of board members are between 50 and 69 years old. Almost half
of board members have business backgrounds (Association of Governing Boards
[AGB], 2010). Increasing diversit y on public higher education boards may be helpful
in recruiting a greater diversity of faculty and students.
Autonomy and academic freedom are long-held traditions designed to protect
institutions and faculty in the pursuit of knowledge and truth from interference by the
government or other outside interests. For example, these concepts indicate that
society values a scientist’s pursuit of knowledge about man’s beginning without
pressure from the government or other organizations related to evolution or
creationism. For public institutions, certain autonomies and freedoms are granted by
the state because the state holds the charter for the institution. The system and
institution then determine what autonomies and freedoms are provided to faculty
(Johnstone, 2013). Certainly, there are strong professional norms that permeate
academic freedom, and one would be hard pressed to find a public institution that did
not offer significant freedom to institutions and faculty.
On the other hand, as state centralization and control of higher education
grows, institutional autonomy and traditional concepts of faculty governance can be
limited. As one higher education scholar notes, “as the locus of influence moves from
the campus to the state, public-sector presidents may find themselves becoming more
like middle managers than campus leader” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 16). Faculties’
tradition of shared institutional governance on academic, curricular, and peer-related
issues, such as the granting of promotion and tenure, may be eroding due to greater
pressure on states and institutions to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
higher education. A recent survey of institutional presidents (excluding Bible colleges
and seminaries) found that 58% have overruled a department’s desire to hire a certain
scholar due to questions of the scholar’s competence, and 54% have blocked a
scholar’s tenure for the same reason (Flaherty, 2015). The survey also found that
presidents desire even more input into these processes (Flaherty, 2015).
c. Finance
Higher education finance is just as complicated as, but wholly different from,
K–12 and early learning finance. Public institutions of higher education receive
funding from the state (through appropriations and student aid), the federal
government (through student aid and research grants), and student tuition. Private
institutions receive similar funding streams, but much less or no state funding. Both
public and private institutions also receive funding from alumni, other donors,
foundations, and corporations (National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems, 2014).
The total amounts of funding and the percentages of funding by source are
constant sources of examination and usually consternation. Certainly, as the portion of
higher education funding from state sources declines, which will be discussed later,
institutions must weigh how much they can increase tuition or donations and/or
maintain quality while operating more efficiently. The 2008 economic recession
negatively impacted higher education finance. In all but two U.S. states, government
spending per student is still below prerecession levels, and at least seven governors
are proposing even deeper state funding cuts (Deprez, 2015). Who pays for higher
education is not just a monetary issue. The following discussion also centers on
societal views about who or what benefits from citizens receiving higher educations.
On the one hand, more educated workers are crucial to the current and future
economy, as some economists predict that the majority of future job growth will be in
areas that require advanced training. On the other hand, it is increasingly clear that
individuals with higher education reap significant financial benefits throughout their
lifetimes. Who pays for what tends to be a reflection of discussions about whether
higher education is primarily a public and/or a private benefit. This values-laden issue
should be considered as you read the following section covering major sources of
higher education finance including the states, students, institutions, and the federal
government.
Institutions of higher education are generally funded through formulas, either
enrollment based (number of students enrolled) or incremental (previous year
allocations adjusted up or down) (Snyder, 2015). Although formulas may call for a
certain amount to be distributed to institutions, the formula can only distribute what
has been allocated to higher education through the state budget. These amounts have
been declining because total state funding for higher education has decreased over the
past 30 years (using constant 2013 dollars). Although funding has declined in recent
years, states obviously still prioritize higher education; on average, about 13% of
states’ budgets were spent on this sector (National Association of State Budget
Officers, 2014). Per student funding is higher than it was 30 years ago, but lower than
10 years ago (College Board, 2014a). Of course, the economic recession starting in
2008 had a large impact on the ability of states to allocate funding to higher education
and other state activities. State and local educational appropriations per student (or
full-time equivalent student—FTE) were at a recent high in fiscal year 2008 at
$8,081. This dropped to $6,215 two years later and is just now showing a sign of
recovery; the fiscal year 2014 figure is $6,552 (SHEEO, 2015). Since the recession,
Alabama per-FTE funding took the hardest hit with a decrease of 38.9%, while
Illinois was able to increase funding by 50.2% over the same time period (SHEEO,
2015). Across the states, 47.1% of total public higher education revenue is from
tuition, which represents a slight decrease from the previous year and a 12 percentage
point increase from before the recession (SHEEO, 2015).
A recent survey of system and institutional governing board members found
that the number one reason public institutions increase student costs is due to
decreased state support. At private institutions, the top reason for increases in student
costs is needed capital investments and campus infrastructure (AGB, 2012).
Interestingly, 62% of respondents believe that his/ her institution generally costs what
it should relative to its value, but only 38% believe that higher education in general
costs what it should. This pattern is typical in surveys of stakeholders—my school is
great, but overall public education is bad; my legislator is great, but Congress is bad.
Half of respondents say that their institution does everything it can to reduce expenses
(AGB, 2012), which makes one wonder why the other half of respondents are not also
doing the same.
Important to the discussion about state funding of higher education is the
policy of outcome-based funding. Outcome-based funding, sometimes called
performance funding, is a policy mechanism that ties some portion of state higher
education funding to outcomes. This was first implemented in Tennessee in 1979,
where 2% of state higher education funding was linked to five performance indicators
(Bogue & Johnson, 2010). The general theory of action around outcome-based
funding is that linking funding to desired goals will encourage institutional
prioritization of those goals and ultimately achievement of those goals. Tennessee
continues performance funding today, although it has been significantly refined, and
many states have followed suit. The 1990s was a popular decade for implementation
of such funding mechanisms, but the majority of states adopting formulas during this
period eventually abandoned these policies (Dougherty et al., 2014). These illfated
formulas are often called “1.0 versions” and are characterized by a small percentage
of funding attributed to performance, a wide variety of metrics largely linked to
institutional rather than state interests, and formula implementation that fluctuated
with the economy. Often, the formulas did not differentiate between different types of
institutions, such as open access versus research institutions. “This non-differentiation
led some institutions to modify their behavior in counterproductive ways to boost
their numerical performance on selected metrics (such as limiting access to increase
graduation rates)”
Outcome-based funding 2.0 policies started in the late 2000s and are
characterized by a greater percentage of the funding formula, narrow metrics tied to
state interests such as college completion, and better designed formulas. As of
December 2014, 26 states are implementing outcome-based formulas, and 10
additional states are developing such policies (Snyder, 2015). The formulas vary
widely by the percentage of funding attributed to performance, the metrics used, and
differentiation between types of institutions (Snyder, 2015). To date, there has been
much more research on 1.0 outcome-based formulas because they have been in place
longer. Generally, this research finds little empirical evidence that the formulas helped
institutions or states meet stated goals (see, for example, Shin, 2010; Shin & Milton,
2004; Tandberg, et al., 2014). Effects of 2.0 versions of outcome-based funding on
stated goals has yet to be studied in depth, but policy leaders are hoping that the
differences in the 2.0 formulas will make them more effective.
Related to outcome-based funding, which attempts to incentivize concrete
results, is a movement toward trying to measure student learning. Right now,
graduation is the major proxy for student learning under the assumption that faculty
carefully design programs of study for each major and would not pass students from a
course if the requisite knowledge was not obtained. However, there are increasing
attempts to more accurately measure student knowledge to gauge progress from year
to year, at certain milestones, and upon completion.
Unlike public early learning and K–12 education, students (and their families)
share the cost for higher education, whether it is at a public or private institution.
These costs have been an increasingly popular topic in the media as student costs
appear to be rising. According to the latest trends in college pricing report by the
College Board, “College price increases are not accelerating. But they are
accumulating” (2014a, p. 7). What does it cost to attend college? The most recent
figures show that the average annual in-state undergraduate tuition and fees for full-
time students at public four-year institutions amount to $8,070 per year. An extra
$9,404 is estimated for living and other expenses. Average out-of-state tuition and
fees are substantially higher than in-state costs at $22,603. Average tuition and fees
for private institutions are $25,696, and in-state tuition at two-year colleges costs
$2,882 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). It is important to note that
these are averages for all types of institutions. Tuition and fees at very selective
research institutions may be much higher than at more open access institutions.
Tuition setting for public institutions is a multistep process that usually begins
in the fall and continues through the spring. It includes consideration of revenue
projections from sources other than students and anticipated costs (Carlson, 2013).
The process may include several leaders, namely the state’s governor, legislature,
statewide coordinating or governing board, local district governing boards, and/or
individual institutions (Carlson, 2013). If there are several participants, each may have
a different role in tuition setting. For example, the governor, legislature, or board may
have full legal decision-making authority, while others will have informal or
consultative roles. In 21 states, the coordinating or governing board has full legal
decision-making authority for tuition setting at four-year schools (Carlson, 2013). The
collaborative approach may help to keep costs down; unsurprisingly, research has
found that if individual institutions have sole discretion in setting tuition rates, the
rates are likely to increase (Kim & Ko, 2014).
It is important to recognize the distinction between “sticker price” tuition and
what students actually pay, or “net tuition.” Often, institutions will discount the
advertised tuition price to attract certain types of excellent students or to help students
in need. Other types of state and/or federal aid can defray tuition costs as well. The
bottom line is what students and their families must pay out of pocket.
However, the room, board, and other living expenses are estimated to be
$13,340, and the extra money from grants and aid only covers a fraction of that
amount. This is what concerns many policymakers and analysts— that many low-
income students, as opposed to wealthier students, must work while in college, take
out loans to supplement grant aid, or choose not to attend college at all. It is important
to have a basic understanding of higher education funding because it affects other
higher education policies such as college enrollment and attainment. The rest of this
section will provide more detail about student aid and loans. There are many types of
student aid: scholarships and grants from the institution or external organization, merit
aid from the state, need-based aid from the state or the federal government, loans from
the state or federal government, and work/study arrangements. For graduate students,
teaching or research assistantships often provide a nominal salary and cover the cost
of tuition.
The most recent figures show that the majority of aid (54%) given to
undergraduates was in the form of grants. Thirty-seven percent of aid was in the form
of loans and 9% of aid was in a combination of tax credits or deductions and federal
work-study opportunities. For graduate students, the greater share of aid was in loans
(62%), then grants (32%), and finally tax credits, deductions, and work-study (6%)
(College Board, 2014b). “In 2013–14, 40% of all grant aid came from the federal
government, 39% from colleges and universities, 13% from employers and other
private sources, and 8% from state governments” (College Board, 2014b, p. 3). It is
not surprising that the largest amount of grant aid comes from the federal government,
given its support of the Pell Grant program. This program has provided need-based
aid to undergraduate students since the Higher Education Act of 1965. Thirty-eight
percent of undergraduate students, or 9.2 million students, received a Pell Grant in
2013–14. This represents an increase from 25% of undergraduates in 2003–04
(College Board, 2014b). Grant amounts are provided on a sliding scale. Only
undergraduate students with an expected family contribution of zero and who enroll in
school full time receive the maximum annual grant of $5,730 (for the 2014–15 school
year). Twenty-seven percent of Pell Grant recipients earn the maximum award. The
maximum grant covers 63% of average public four-year tuition and fees. This is down
from 79% 10 years ago. The average Pell Grant per student is $3,678, and total
federal expenditures on this program are $33.7 billion (College Board, 2014b).
States also give a substantial amount of aid to students. State approaches differ
widely as some states only give aid based on merit, some states only give aid based on
financial need, and other states give a combination of aid. The argument for need-
based aid is clear—to help those students who might not otherwise go to college
because of financial reasons. The arguments for merit-based aid are different, but also
compelling. Offering the state’s “best and brightest” students with financial assistance
to attend a state college maintains a steady pipeline of talented students into state
institutions and increases the likelihood that those students will stay in state once they
graduate. Research supports this proposition (Zhang & Ness, 2010).
Fourteen states have merit-based aid programs and most are in the southeast
region (Zhang & Ness, 2010). Most merit-based aid programs require a certain grade
point average upon high school graduation and a minimum score on a college
entrance exam like the SAT or ACT (Delaney & Ness, forthcoming). Recent data
indicate that 75% of all state aid was in the form of need-based grants, and 23 states
allocate the vast majority of their state aid to students in need (College Board, 2014b).
State grant aid per student also varies by state. South Carolina offers the most per
student at $1,890 (College Board, 2014b).
Although much has been made in recent years about the increasing debt load
of students, recent data from the College Board indicate that the outlook may not be
as bleak as once thought. Since 2007–08, the portion of all undergraduate aid in the
form of loans has been decreasing (College Board, 2014b). “The reality is that
students are leaving school with more debt than their counterparts five or ten years
ago. Moreover, because the number of people going to college has increased
significantly over the past decade, the total amount borrowed each year and the total
amount of outstanding debt have grown much faster than individual debt levels”
(College Board, 2014b, p. 7). Still, the majority of graduates earn both a diploma and
loan debt. About 60% of four-year college graduates carry some debt at an average
amount of $27,300, an increase of 19% over the past decade. Sixty-nine percent of
borrowers with outstanding education debt owed $25,000 or less. Nine percent of
borrowers with outstanding federal loans were in default as of fall 2013, and the
defaults constituted only 5% of all total outstanding debt. For-profit institutions
accounted for nearly half the students who defaulted on their loans. Twenty-four
percent of defaults came from students who attended public two-year colleges, 20%
from public four-year institutions, and 10% from private nonprofit four-year colleges
(College Board, 2014b). Interestingly, recent research from the federal reserve bank of
New York found that student loan defaults decrease with a higher loan balance.
Thirty-four percent of students who owed $5,000 or less defaulted on their loans,
while only 18% of students who owed $100,001 or more defaulted on their loans
(“Data Point,” 2015).
Student defaults are not the only issue regarding loans. Since the federal
government is again providing direct loans to students, there have been many
complaints about the system. In early 2015, President Obama announced the creation
of a Student Bill of Rights program which will include creation of a centralized
complaint system for federal student loan borrowers and a single web site for
managing loan payments. The president also plans to “convene an interagency task
force to develop regulatory and legislative proposals to help struggling borrowers
with both federal and private student loans” (Stratford, 2015b).
Other than state financial support and basic student tuition revenues,
institutions support themselves through endowments and tinkering with the balance of
out-of-state and/or international students. Both public and private institutions utilize
endowments to fund a myriad of costs including new dorms, building construction,
salaries, and tuition aid for low-income students (Upton & Schnaars, 2012). In 2012,
837 institutions reported having an endowment (Upton & Schnaars, 2012). Harvard
University has the largest endowment overall at $36.4 billion (Rivard, 2014) and the
University of Texas has the largest endowment for a public school (Upton &
Schnaars, 2012). Overall, endowment funds for all institutions have been rising, with
double-digit returns the past two years (Rivard, 2014). With these significant stores of
money, one might wonder why institutions of higher education are not able to fund all
of their needs. The issue is that the principal of the endowment is usually protected,
and only the interest may be spent each year. Average reported spending rates for
college and university endowments in 2012–13 was between 4% and 5% (College
Board, 2014a ). Another limiting factor on endowment expenditures is the purpose for
which money donated to the institution was earmarked. Many donors specify a certain
project or target for their donation, which limits the college or university’s spending
discretion.
Another source of funding for public institutions comes from premium tuition
prices. Traditionally, out-ofstate and international students pay a premium for
attending public institutions because the state only subsidizes tuition for its citizens.
Many elite private institutions in the U.S. do not charge a premium to international
students, so this section focuses on public institutions. The extra funding public
institutions receive from out-of-state and international students can help bolster
revenues. Not surprisingly, a study of public institutions from 2000 to 2012 showed
that the percentage of in-state residents constituting the freshman class is, on average,
decreasing. Of more than 400 public colleges and universities, 60% saw a decline in
the percentage of in-state freshmen. One-fifth of the institutions saw a drop of 10 or
more percentage points. Particularly notable was the University of Alabama, which
went from 75% in-state enrollment for its 2000 freshman class to only 45% in 2012
(Burd, 2015). Some state leaders are attempting to modify this institutional behavior
by proposing extra funding for in-state students or capping the number of out-of-state
and international students (Burd, 2015). Considering the public nature of these
institutions and that many of them have land-grant status, it is interesting that their
service to the state, in the way of student seats, is dwindling.
Although the federal government’s role in financing higher education has been
discussed in other portions of this section, there are a few additional points to note.
Overall, the federal government financially supports higher education through
purchasing research and development services, meeting special needs (e.g., college
library support), and providing funding directly to students and families (Gladieux,
King, & Corrigan, 2005). Federal sources of funding account for 34% of total
institutional revenue at a public doctoral institution but only 14% at a two-year public
institution (College Board, 2014a). Most of this difference is likely due to research
support at four-year and graduate institutions.
d. Major Stakeholders
There are many organizations and associations supporting and advocating for
higher education and its various components and groups. These organizations can be
categorized into three groups: groups with an evaluative role (e.g., accrediting
bodies), groups with an affiliate role (e.g., professional membership organizations),
and groups with a funding role (e.g., foundations) (Hendrickson et al., 2013). This
section will provide some discussion on accrediting bodies and professional
membership organizations. Foundations were extensively covered in the K–12 and are
also influential in higher education, but the discussion remains very similar to that in
the K–12 section and is therefore not repeated here. Accrediting agencies began in the
late 1800s out of a need for standards in the absence of a national centralizing body
(Hendrickson et al., 2013). Accreditors assess, usually through peer review,
institutions, colleges, and departments according to predefined standards. There are
six regional accrediting bodies as well as several other specialized and professional
accrediting agencies.
American higher education associations sometimes act in concert and are often
referred to as the “One Dupont” group—because many of them share the same
address in Washington, DC (One Dupont Circle). The American Council of Education
(ACE), founded in 1918, acts as the umbrella organization for several of these higher
education associations. It represents public and private two- and four-year institutions
and purports to “coordinate the advocacy efforts of the entire community.” It
coordinates 50 educational associations known as the Washington Higher Education
Secretariat, which meets monthly in Washington, DC, to discuss higher education
issues of common interest (Harcleroad & Eaton, 2005). Some members of the
secretariat include the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, the
National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and the American
Association of Community Colleges.
Another important advocacy group is the Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, which represents 34,500 trustees of nearly 1,800 colleges
and universities and their related foundations. Other than advocacy groups, regional
compacts are very important to state higher education policy. There are four regional
compacts, including the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, the
New England Board of Higher Education, the Midwestern Higher Education
Compact, and the Southern Regional Education Board. Three of them were
established shortly after World War II and all of them help states address educational
issues that transcended state lines. Forty-six states are members of a regional compact
(Harcleroad & Eaton, 2005).
e. Major Policy Issues
Many policy leaders at all levels of government are touting the need for a
more educated workforce and hence the need for more students to complete a
postsecondary credential such as a certificate or degree. For more students to
complete, more students need to enter the pipeline beyond what conventional
population growth provides. In some policy circles, this has manifested into a “college
for all” approach, a policy argument undergirded by both economic and equity
rationales. The economic rationale is that more educated workers are needed. Some
labor economists suggest that the American economy will need 20 million additional
postsecondary-educated workers by 2025 (Carnevale & Rose, 2011). The equity
rationale highlights the college enrollment and attainment gaps between racial, ethnic,
and socioeconomic student groups and strives to eliminate those gaps by disrupting
current patterns and calling for educators and leaders to assume that all students can
and should attend college. The equity gaps are important based upon the individual
benefits that accrue from earning a postsecondary credential, namely a decreased
chance of unemployment and higher earnings.
Although unemployment at all education levels has decreased over the past
three years, gaps remain between levels of educational attainment. For instance,
recent high school diploma holders have a 17.8% unemployment rate, whereas recent
college graduates have a 7.5% rate (Carnevale & Cheah, 2015). Educational
attainment significantly affects individual earning potential. Over a lifetime, someone
with a bachelor’s degree will typically earn $1.2 million, which is double what a
typical high school graduate would earn (Hershbein & Kearney, 2014). One
researcher found that the earnings gap between high school and college graduates has
more than doubled over the past 30 years and that “about two-thirds of the overall rise
of earnings dispersion between 1980 and 2005 is proximately accounted for by the
increased premium associated with schooling in general and postsecondary education
in particular” (Autor, 2014, p. 843). Not surprisingly, the premium for a college
degree varies by major. One study found the premium for a college degree over a high
school education was highest for engineers at 138% and was lowest for arts,
recreation, psychology, and social work majors at 29%.
This has led to calls for rigorous high school curriculums for all students that
eliminate traditional vocational and college-prep tracks. While this does indeed
promote equity, it may prompt other critical questions such as why all students must
take Algebra II regardless of their intended career path. A common answer to this type
of question is that secondary school students are too young to know definitively what
career paths are ahead of them, and perhaps their conceptions of career paths are
influenced by cultural or other limitations. Ensuring that all students have a rigorous
curriculum ensures no student is tracked based on prejudices or bias (however
unintended) or is limited by his/her own imagination. The “college for all” policy
seems to be in a state of flux while policy leaders try to simultaneously ensure an
educated workforce, equitable access to rigorous learning, and common sense
approaches to meeting students’ unique learning needs and ambitions.
While college access has been and remains a top policy focus, college
completion rates have recently come under scrutiny. Up until recently, policy leaders
and society at large seemed to leave college success and completion to the student. As
discussed earlier in the context of President Obama’s initiatives, the economic
imperative for a more educated workforce has shined a new light on the efficiency of
higher education institutions in graduating students. This seems to be working, as
94% of responding members of institutional and system higher education governing
boards believe that colleges and universities need to do more to increase the
percentage of enrolled students who complete degrees (AGB, 2012).
The federal government began tracking overall college completion rates with
the 1996 freshman cohort. Just under 34% of that cohort of first-time, full-time,
bachelor’s degree–seeking students at four-year institutions graduated in four years
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The rate increased slightly to 39%
with the 2007 entering cohort. If the graduation date is stretched to five years to allow
for changes in majors, internships, study abroad experiences, and other reasons for
delay, the graduation rate was 55%, and at six years it was 59% (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015). Within the overall completion rates, the data show some
disparities among types of institutions and student characteristics. Nonprofit
institutions have the highest graduation rates at 52.8%. Females graduate at a higher
rate than males—44% compared to 35%. More selective institutions have higher
graduation rates as institutions with less than a 25% acceptance rate had an average
graduation rate of 89%, while open access institutions had a rate of 34% in six years
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).
A student’s family income may also affect his/her likelihood of graduating
college. Calculations conducted by The Pell Institute and PennAHEAD (2015) found
that in 2013, 21% of entering students in the bottom quartile of family income
graduated college after entering, and 99% of students in the top quartile of family
income did the same. Other researchers caution that while there may indeed be
disparities in completion rates by family income level, the data used for this study,
and data availability in general to make these types of inferences, are far from perfect.
Chingos and Dynarski (2015) argue that it is more likely that 65%, rather than 99%,
of entering students from families with incomes in the top quartile complete college.
Whether or not a student is prepared to succeed in college has a large impact
on the student’s success. Many students are delayed in taking credit-earning courses
because, although they graduated from high school, they are not yet ready to take
college-level courses. Colleges, mostly at the open access and lower selectivity levels,
have offered remediation to such students. Of undergraduate students entering college
in the fall of 2011, almost 20% took one or more remedial class during their first year
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The largest percentage of students
taking remedial classes was at two-year institutions, but the rate was only marginally
higher than the percentage of students needing remediation at public, four-year,
nondoctoral institutions (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Research
consistently shows that students taking remediation education complete college at
much lower rates than those students who do not require remediation. These dismal
statistics have generated new structural designs for remediation, such as offering it
simultaneously with core classes. This has also put more pressure on K–12 and higher
education to collaborate in ensuring high school graduation requirements align with
basic college entry expectations.
