Contributor Post Created with Sketch. More Misconceptions About College

 

Now that we’ve all had a good airing of grievances about elite colleges and their attendant injustices, let’s get some perspective.

While the number of high school graduates heading off to college has increased in recent years, the percentages graduating with a four-year degree have not increased much. Many students, especially those who are the first in their families to attend college, drop out before receiving a degree. (They cannot drop out of student loan payments though.)

Data from the Lumina Foundation show that among Americans aged 25-64, 52.4 percent have no more than a high school diploma (though 15.4 percent of them attended college for a while). An additional 5.2 percent received a certificate of some kind, and 9.2 percent obtained an associate’s degree. What most people think of when you say “college,” is a four-year institution. Only 21.1 percent received BA degrees, and another 12.2 percent also earned graduate degrees. Adding the last two categories brings the fraction of Americans with college or graduate degrees to just over one third.

While most of the conversation in the past week has focused on highly selective colleges like Yale and Penn, it’s important to remember that only a small number of America’s colleges are selective. As FiveThirtyEight has reported, more than 75 percent of undergrads attend colleges that accept at least half of all applicants. The number who attend selective colleges — i.e., schools that accept 25 percent or fewer is just four percent. And the number who attend schools in the very top tier, colleges that reject 90 percent or more, can be counted on your fingers and toes. You can probably guess most of them. (Though not all. On this US News list, Pomona College came in at #11, and the Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute came in first.) Less than one percent of college students attend these elite schools.

Most students attend commuter schools, which tend to be community colleges. Even among those at four-year institutions, almost 25 percent attend part-time. Half of college students are also working, not getting plastered at frat parties.

There’s a healthy debate in policy circles about whether our current cultural preoccupation with college for all is a good thing or not. Some people who are funneled toward college might be a better fit for vocational training, apprenticeships, or other life paths; and while there is no doubt about the association between college completion and higher income, there is uncertainty about the causal relationship.

Rather than gnash our collective teeth about whether Jason or Jessica can get into MIT, we might want to focus on all students, those who are headed for college and those who are not. Every student in elementary and high school should be learning about the “success sequence.” The phrase was introduced by Isabelle Sawhill and Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution and has lately been reinforced with a study by W. Bradford Wilcox and Wendy Wang of the Institute for Family Studies.

What they’ve found is that students have it within their power to virtually guarantee a middle- or upper-class income if they follow three steps. Those three basics are 1) finish high school, 2) get a full-time job, and 3) get married before having children. Young people who follow all three steps have only a 3 percent likelihood of living in poverty when they reach young adulthood. Eighty-six percent of Millennials who put marriage first had incomes in the middle or upper third, compared with 53 percent who had children before marriage. The success sequence works for those born into poverty too. Seventy-one percent of Millennials who grew up in the bottom third of the income distribution were in the middle or upper third by young adulthood if they followed the three steps. Among African-Americans, 76 percent who followed the success sequence achieved the middle class or above, and among Hispanics, the percentage was 81 percent.

With all of the emphasis on a tiny sliver of the top 1 percent of students, most young people can get the impression that they are doomed to a lesser life. In fact, avoiding a few pitfalls like dropping out of high school, having a baby out of wedlock, or failing to find employment is a ticket to success.

There’s a bias among writer types to pay attention to Princeton and Columbia. But that’s not really where the action is in helping most Americans.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member

    Mona Charen: There’s a healthy debate in policy circles about whether our current cultural preoccupation with college for all is a good thing or not.

    The issue is, in aggregate, it doesn’t develop human capital at a fair price. It’s basically credentialism, indoctrination, and theft.

    • #1
    • March 21, 2019, at 1:02 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  2. CJ Inactive
    CJ

    I have serious doubts this will ever be discussed in government schools.

    They’re too busy programming elementary school inmates that not attending college is the mark of a failure.

    • #2
    • March 21, 2019, at 1:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. RufusRJones Member

    Nick GIllespie talks with @ThaddeusRussell about Renegade University and how the Department of Education is screwing up universities https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/26/thad-russell-education-academia-podcast

     

    The Massive Higher-Ed Scam You’ve Never Heard About: Podcast

    Renegade University’s Thaddeus Russell on the federal-accreditation racket, why the Ivys are terrified of competition…

     

     

     

    Historian and entrepreneur Thaddeus Russell has a bone to pick with American higher education. It’s not simply that maverick opinions that stray from a liberal-progressive orthodoxy get squashed in classroom discussions and tenure decisions. Russell says the federal Department of Education effectively manages an accreditation system that controls the number and character of elite institutions by insisting that “serious” colleges and universities have dorms, dining halls, and a whole host of things completely unrelated to higher learning.

    • #3
    • March 21, 2019, at 1:19 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mona Charen: Rather than gnash our collective teeth about whether Jason or Jessica can get into MIT …

    And again: the differential equations at MIT aren’t any tougher than the ones at Podunk Tech. 

    Engineering 100 was a acclimation seminar at the University of Illinois. I only attended the first session or so. The only thing that I can recall other than the admirable way Sharon Kozlowski could fill out a sweater was when a full professor stood up before us and said “Look to your left. Look to your right. One of the three of you will graduate from this school with an engineering degree.”

    Sharon made it, by the way. Smart cookie.

    • #4
    • March 21, 2019, at 2:04 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. Full Size Tabby Member

    And for those concerned about the college debt disaster, I understand that a large portion of it is owed by people who started college but did not complete it. 

    My late father, who spent a portion of his life as a professor of engineering, used to rail against affirmative action by noting the high percentage of “minority” students admitted to “elite” universities but who dropped out along the way. He noted that many of those students would have succeeded at “lesser” colleges, but instead became “failures” because they were pushed into universities for which they were unprepared. He often said that a graduate of Cal State San Bernardino or UCRiverside was in a better position than a dropout from UCLA or Stanford.

    • #5
    • March 21, 2019, at 4:23 PM PDT
    • 4 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.