The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently released “Skills Outlook 2013,” a report that studies adults’ skills in literacy, numeracy, and technology across 24 countries. While Japan and Finland ranked first and second respectively in average scores, the United States scored significantly below average in all three fields. Many experts worry that the US will not be able to compete in a global marketplace unless we are able to improve proficiency in these skill areas.
There was not much good news for the United States in the OECD’s report: Americans ranked 16th out of 23 countries in literacy (comprehending and interpreting words, sentences and complex texts), 21st out of 23 in numeracy (solving problems in a mathematical context), and 14th out of 19 in technology skills (problem-solving using a computer). Furthermore, socioeconomic background was a greater predictor of skill proficiency in the United States than in other countries, indicating large social disparities and a low potential for upward mobility. However, socioeconomic background was less of a predictor for younger US adults, meaning (perhaps) that socioeconomic background is becoming less of a barrier with time. Lastly, not only did the US score below average in all areas, there was hardly any improvement between younger and older generations. For numeracy, older US adults (ages 55-65) performed near the average, but younger US adults (ages 16-24) scored dead last among all participating countries. This last point is particularly concerning as it suggests young people are entering a much more demanding labor market, but are not much better prepared than those who are retiring.
These disappointing results raise an interesting question: if the US has such a dearth of skilled workers, how is it able to remain an innovative and productive economy? Anthony Carnevale, from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, believes it is because the US compensates the most talented and skilled workers exceptionally well, which attracts significant foreign talent and creates great innovation and growth from the top down. However, as growth in the future will likely require more skills at every level of the economy, the American advantage could be slipping. The authors suggest that better educational opportunities and better training in the workplace will be necessary to reduce social inequities, improve upward mobility, and thus avoid economic stagnation. While the report finds that more education is correlated with higher skill proficiency, the quality of education in different countries can differ to the extent that a 25-34 year old high school graduate from Japan exhibits better skill proficiency than a college graduate from Spain. This suggests that adults can learn important skills outside of the traditional educational track—through better job training, adult education, and skill certification and recognition.
For more information, check out the full OECD report, or analysis by Inside Higher Ed and the New York Times.
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released its annual update on federal student loan cohort default rates (CDRs), which measure the frequency with which student borrowers at all levels (undergraduate, graduate, etc.) default on their federal loans. Although both national and UW CDRs rose, the UW’s rates remain well below those of the nation.
As ED is in its second year of switching to the more accurate three-year CDR measure, this year’s report includes both the FY 2011 two-year and the FY 2010 three-year CDRs. These rates represent the percentage of student borrowers who failed to make loan payments for 270 days within two or three years, respectively, of leaving school.
The Department provides breakdowns of its data by institution type, state and school. Here are some key findings:
FY 2010 three-year CDR:
- The national three-year CDR increased from 13.4 to 14.7 percent overall—public institutions increased from 11.0 to 13.0 percent, private nonprofits increased from 7.5 to 8.2 percent, but for-profits’ whopping 22.7 percent rate decreased slightly to 21.8 percent.
- The UW’s three-year CDR increased slightly from 3.1 to 3.9 percent, but this is still nearly 11 percentage points below the national average.
FY 2011 two-year CDR:
- The national two-year CDR increased from 9.1 to 10.0 percent overall—public institutions increased from 8.3 to 9.6 percent, for-profits increased from 12.9 to 13.6 percent, but private nonprofits held steady at 5.2 percent.
- The UW’s two-year CDR increased from 2.1 to 3.2 percent, but this is still nearly 7 percentage points below the national average.
While this is good news, many students still struggle to afford ever-increasing tuition fees and/or to repay their student loans. The UW reaches out to our former students at risk of default on their Stafford Loans and helps identify federal repayment options that could benefit them. Former UW students who are in default or experiencing difficulties repaying their loans can contact the Office of Student Financial Aid for assistance (email@example.com, 206-543-6101). Students can also visit studentloans.gov to explore their repayment options.
The results of two new surveys released Tuesday reveal some of America’s views on both the future of higher education as well as its role in producing desirable outcomes, particularly career-ready graduates. Under Northeastern University’s sponsorship, FTI Consulting surveyed 263 hiring managers in July as well as 1,000 adult Americans in August. Here are some of their findings:
- Americans continue to see the value in higher education, but are concerned that the system does not adequately prepare graduates for their careers. Respondents ranked “level of education” as the most important factor in determining a job candidate’s success; yet, 62 percent said colleges currently do only a fair to poor job of preparing graduates for the workforce. That said, 79 percent believe their own college education prepared them well.
- Americans are conflicted about who has the greatest responsibility to train recent graduates for the workplace: employers (36 percent), colleges/universities (29 percent) or the graduates themselves (35 percent). When Americans were asked why U.S. companies are struggling to find good job candidates, the most common response was that companies are not investing enough in training new hires. However, 87 percent of Americans assert that higher education must change in order to maintain an internationally competitive workforce.
- Americans and business leaders value “soft” skills, like problem-solving and communication, over “hard” industry-specific skills. Most Americans (65 percent) and business leaders (73 percent) believe that, for people on the job market, “being well-rounded with a range of abilities is more important than having industry experience because job-specific skills can be learned at work.”
- Americans and business leaders agree that experiential learning is highly valuable to students’ careers. Nearly all Americans (89 percent) and business leaders (74 percent) believe that students are more successful in their careers if they have work experience from a field-related internship or job. Both groups agree the most important step the U.S. can take to better prepare colleges students is to broaden the professional work programs available to them.
- Although most Americans (67 percent) think colleges should adopt new technologies and interactive teaching methods, they have doubts about MOOCs and online degrees. Less than 30 percent of Americans and business leaders believe MOOCs are of the same quality as in-person courses, and only 37 percent of Americans would consider completing a postsecondary degree solely online. However, about half of all respondents believe MOOCs will transform education in the US and that online degrees will be equally accepted by employers within 5 to 7 years.
My take-away from all this, to summarize, is: Americans and business leaders believe that people on the job market need a college education, some professional work experience, and a well-rounded skill-set and in order to succeed. However, they also believe that colleges, businesses, and the government must play a role in helping students garner those qualifications.
According to an annual survey released on Monday by the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), the amount of state dollars going toward financial aid remained relatively stable between 2010-11 and 2011-12. In 2011-12, states awarded about $11.1 billion in state-based financial aid, a slight increase (0.7 percent) over the $11.0 billion awarded in 2010-11. That growth has not kept pace with rising enrollments or the overall increase in students’ financial need; however, it’s encouraging to see growth of any size given that general state appropriations for higher education fell by 7 percent during that same time period.
The state-by-state data show that Washington, New Jersey, New York and California gave out the most need-based aid on a per-student basis. Oregon more than doubled the amount it spent on need-based grants, to nearly $44-million, and Washington increased its need-based grants by 26 percent. However, 23 states cut need-based aid from 2010 to 2011 and four states reported no need based aid programs at all.
What’s most intriguing, in my opinion, is that even though states collectively put only slightly more money toward their financial aid programs, they shifted a larger portion of those aid dollars toward need-based aid and grant aid (see the tables below). This finding suggests that states are attempting to maintain access in the face of rising tuition rates and to reduce the amount of debt their students accumulate.
Of the $11.1 billion in total state-awarded student aid:
- $9.4 billion (84%) was grant aid—up 1.7% from 2010-11; and
- $1.7 billion (16%) was non-grant aid (loans, work-study, tuition waivers, etc.)—down 4.2% from the previous year.
Of the $9.4 billion in state-awarded grant aid:
- $7.0 billion (74%) was need-based—up 6.3% from last year; and
- $2.4 billion (26%) was non-need-based—down 9.4%.
Of the $10.1 billion in state-awarded undergraduate aid (both grants and non-grants):
- $4.7 billion (47%) was exclusively need-based—up 6.0%;
- $2.0 billion (20%) was awarded on a mix of need and merit criteria—up 1.6% and surpassing, for the first time ever, aid awarded solely on merit;
- $1.9 billion (19%) was exclusively merit-based—down 1.3%; and
- $1.4 billion (14%) was special purpose awards and uncategorized aid— a 3.0% drop.
|Change in Total State-Awarded Student Aid
|Percent change from 2010-11 to 2011-12
|Type of Student Aid
||Portion of total
|Change in State-Awarded Grant Aid
|Percent change from 2010-11 to 2011-12
|Type of Grant Aid
||Portion of total
|Total grant aid
|Change in State-Awarded Undergraduate Aid
|Percent change from 2010-11 to 2011-12
|Type of Undergrad Aid
||Portion of total
|Mixed need & merit-based
|Uncategorized & other
|Total undergraduate aid
A recent update on our state’s progress toward meeting the Washington Roundtable’s Benchmarks for a Better Washington emphasizes the need for legislative action on education, including protecting funding for our public universities, as well as transportation and business costs. The Roundtable – a nonprofit, public policy organization comprised of major, local business executives – created the Benchmarks in 2011 as a means to measure and track Washington’s economic vitality and quality of life. The organization publishes annual updates that examine state-by-state comparative data (primarily from federal sources like the U.S. Dept. of Education); assess Washington’s position in key categories; and highlight opportunities for improvement.
The May 2013 update showed that:
- Washington trails most states in high school graduation rates (ranking 32nd nationally) and bachelor’s degrees awarded per capita (39th nationally).
- Washington’s road condition rankings have dropped from 16th (2012 ranking based on 2008 data) to 29th (2013 ranking based on 2011 data) and our state continues to rank poorly on bridge conditions (41st).
- Washington ranks in the bottom third of states for business tax burden (36th), unemployment insurance tax rates (40th) and workers’ compensation benefits paid (50th).
- However, Washington has held onto its lead in patent generation (5th) and in low commercial and industrial electricity rates (3rd).
The authors argue that Washington must move quickly to improve its education pipeline and align with workforce needs. As 70 percent of Washington jobs will require postsecondary training by 2020, they assert, “It is imperative that Washington prioritizes higher education and does a better job of preparing its citizens to succeed.”
In Monday’s edition of CrossCut, Roundtable President, Steve Mullin, urged lawmakers to focus on two key topics during the remaining weeks of session: education and transportation. He specifically called for legislators to ensure our colleges and niversities have the funding they need to develop necessary talent. “Decision time is here,” he wrote, “Education is the driver of prosperity and individual quality of life. Transportation is the backbone of commerce. Both need attention before the 2013 Legislature adjourns.”
To understand how graduates of different majors are faring in the current job market, a new Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce report examines unemployment rates and median earnings by degree for “recent college graduates” (ages 22-26 with bachelor’s degrees), “experienced college graduates” (ages 30-54), and “graduate degree holders” (ages 30-54 with at least a master’s degree).
The report, entitled Hard Times 2013, finds that the overall unemployment rate for recent graduates is 7.9 percent, with a range of about 7 to 9 percent depending on degree, excepting some notable outliers. Experienced graduates’ unemployment percentage hovered around 4 to 6 percent, while those with graduate degrees had unemployment rates of just 2 to 4 percent.
The report finds that undergraduate majors do matter—but not in the way we might expect. Some unemployment rates were surprising: a recent graduate majoring in music (8.6 percent) is slightly more likely to find a job than a recent computer science grad (8.7 percent). Recently graduated journalism and general engineering majors have the same unemployment rate, at 7 percent. The highest unemployment rates were among recent grads in information systems (14.7 percent) and architecture (12.8 percent), while the lowest were nursing (4.8 percent), elementary education (5 percent), physical fitness/parks and recreation (5.2 percent), chemistry (5.8 percent), and mathematics (5.9 percent).
Furthermore, earnings differentials between recent graduates’ majors are smaller than we might think: the median salary for most is between 30K and 40K per year. Recent grads in computer science and math make slightly more (45K), while recent engineering grads have the highest earnings (54K).
In many cases, what matters most is not degree field, but degree level and experience. For an experienced college graduate, median earnings typically increase by 20K to 30K, depending on degree. And, in most fields, getting a graduate degree pushes median earnings up an additional 10K to 20K.
Of course, it is important to take these findings with a grain of salt: while field of study and level of experience can certainly influence the likelihood of finding a job and the amount of money a graduate will make, they are not the only factors. The institution attended, year of graduation, location, and much more can significantly impact earnings and unemployment.
To read the full report and see a complete breakdown of earnings and unemployment rates by major and experience level, click here.
Georgia State University (GSU) has launched an innovative pilot program, called the Panther Retention Grant, designed to help retain and graduate GSU students who drop out of school for financial reasons. At Georgia State, a diverse public university with over 24,000 undergraduates, administrators have been struggling to raise the undergraduate 6-year graduation rate, which has been below 50 percent for years. This task is complicated by the diversity of the student body–more than 50 percent of students qualify for federal Pell grants, 60 percent are non-white, and 26 percent are adult learners.
In an effort to better understand the root of its low graduation rates, GSU administrators decided to study the students who were dropped from classes for non-payment. They found that the majority of students who were dropped had good grades and owed less than $1,000 on their tuition bill. The university therefore created the Panther Retention Grant—small grants awarded to students who would otherwise be cut due to nonpayment—to bridge the gap on their tuition bill and give students the opportunity to return to school. The grant comes with strings attached—students must complete three online financial literacy modules and fill out a study skills questionnaire to receive the funding.
GSU has already seen promising results. A few years ago, the university provided small grants to 200 students who had been cut for nonpayment to allow them to return to school. The program not only helped retain those students, it also generated more than $660,000 in otherwise forgone tuition revenue. Last year, GSU expanded the program, awarding $600,000 to more than 700 students. GSU hopes its program will demonstrate the effectiveness of targeted, need-based aid in improving graduation rates, particularly for low-income and minority students.
The University of Washington has long recognized the importance of ensuring affordable education for low-income students with its commitment to Husky Promise. Thirty-three percent of resident undergraduates were eligible for Husky Promise this year, which covers all tuition and fees for resident students who qualify for the Pell Grant or State Need Grant. This contributes to the UW’s remarkable success in retaining and graduating students: 79 percent of entering freshmen graduate from the UW within six years, one of the highest 6-year graduation rates among public universities in the nation.
To read more about Georgia’s program, check out the Higher Ed Chronicle’s article. For more information about the UW’s commitment to affordable education, please see the Husky Promise website.
Accenture, a management consulting firm, recently conducted a survey of 2011/2012 college graduates and 2013 pending graduates. The survey focuses on the 2011/2012 graduates’ job search experience, and asks them about their current jobs, salaries, and future education plans. Accenture then contrasts their responses with the employment expectations of pending 2013 graduates. Some interesting findings include:
- While more than 77 percent of 2013 grads expect to receive employer-provided training at their future job, only 48 percent of 2011/2012 grads actually received such training from their employer.
- 50 percent of 2011/2012 grads who are currently unemployed claim that they cannot find a job because companies believe they do not have enough experience, even though 72 percent of 2011/2012 grads participated in an internship during school.
- 41 percent of 2011/2012 graduates believe they are underemployed, meaning their job does not require a college degree.
- Yet despite the still-sluggish economy, 81 percent of 2011/2012 graduates report they found a secure job within 6 months of graduation.
- Of 2011/2012 graduates, 42 percent expect to pursue a graduate degree, but only 18 percent of 2013 grads expect to do so.
Accenture’s report points to the disconnect between employers’ and graduates’ expectations of employment, particularly when it comes to experience and training. The report encourages employers to hire based on potential and a broad skill base, not on specific expertise or perfect qualifications. Furthermore, it recommends that employers provide increased on-the-job training for recent graduates so they can gain necessary experience and job skills to supplement their educational qualifications. Finally, Accenture advises that employers work more closely with educational institutions to help better align their needs with university curriculums, and to provide more internship opportunities for students.
To read the full report, click here, or check out this summary from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Of the nearly 900 schools that received federal money for research and development (R&D) in FY 2011, the UW ranks first among public institutions and second overall in terms of federal research funding. According to a study by the National Science Foundation (NSF), approximately 20 percent of all federal R&D support went to just 10 universities. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed those universities, Table 1 summarizes their findings.
Johns Hopkins University, a private institution, topped the list with nearly $1.9 billion—more than doubling what any other university received that year. The majority of Johns Hopkins’ federal funding came from the Dept. of Defense and NASA. The university also brought in billions via fundraising efforts.
The UW came in second with almost $950 million in federal R&D funding—the most of any public school. The majority of the UW’s money came from the Dept. of Health and Human Services; however, the University was the top beneficiary of NSF funding, receiving more than $145 million in 2011.
Year after year, the same schools consistently receive the most money, said Ronda Britt, a survey statistician with the NSF. 24/7 Wall St. quotes her as saying, these universities “have big research programs that receive a lot of support year after year, and have a lot of infrastructure that helps them keep the money stable.” This holds true for the UW, which has ranked first among public schools since 1974. Having large endowments was another commonality of the top 10 schools, yet federal funding covered the bulk of R&D expenditures in all cases.
As these universities rely heavily on the federal government to support their research, many are concerned about the sweeping cuts of sequestration. The UW and other universities are preparing for a range of possible impacts. As described in our joint brief, the sequester could reduce the UW’s federal grant and contract support by an estimated $75M to $100M during FY13. The UW community is encouraged to remain cautious and conservative in spending federal awards and in planning for future federal funding.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recently released its report on faculty salaries for 2012-2013. Salaries for full-time faculty members rose by an average of 1.7 percent in 2012-2013, which offsets inflation (estimated at 1.7 percent in 2012-13). However, increases varied widely across institution type—pay at private universities was much higher than salaries at public institutions, and professors at doctoral universities made significantly more than faculty at baccalaureate institutions. Furthermore, the survey counts only faculty members who are employed full-time; part-time adjuncts, whose pay is generally significantly lower than that of full-time professors, are excluded.
Inside Higher Ed has compiled a list of the highest-paid full professors in academia. Based on the average salary of full professors, Columbia University ($212,300), Stanford University ($207,300), University of Chicago ($203,600), Harvard University ($203,000) and Princeton University ($200,000) are the top five highest-paying institutions. Of the ten universities with the highest average pay, not a single institution is public. The highest-paid full professors at public institutions are at University of California, Los Angeles, ($167,000), New Jersey Institute of Technology ($166,700), University of California, Berkeley ($158,900), Rutgers University at Newark ($154,700) and Rutgers University at New Brunswick ($151,000).
Detailed information about the UW’s submission to AAUP can be found here. In addition, OPB has prepared a table that compares UW average faculty salaries to those at our Global Challenge State (GCS) peer institutions. UCLA and Rutgers University, whose full professors are some of the highest paid in academia, are both in the GCS peer group. According to our analysis, average faculty salaries (of full, associate, and assistant professors combined) would need to increase by 11.4 percent to equal the GCS peer average. The average salary of full professors would need to increase 16 percent and that of associate professors would need to increase 9.2 percent to equal the peer average. As can be seen on the graph below, the UW’s salaries moved closer to those of the GCS peers between 2003 and 2008, but this progress reversed in 2009, when the legislature imposed a four-year salary freeze.
← Previous Page — Next Page →