Why ASAP Could Harm Some Students

The City University of New York’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) has gotten a great deal of positive attention in the last few years, and for good reason. The program provides much-needed additional economic, advising, and social supports to community college students from low-income families, and a new evaluation of a randomized trial from MDRC found that ASAP increased three-year associate’s degree completion rates from 22% in the control group to 40% in the treatment group. I’m glad to see that the program will be expanded to three community colleges in Ohio, as this will help address concerns about the feasibility of scaling up the program to cover more students.

But it is important to recognize that ASAP, as currently constituted, is limited to students who are able and willing to attend college full-time. Full-time students are the minority at community colleges, and full-time students tend to be more economically and socially advantaged than their part-time peers. As currently constructed, ASAP would direct a higher percentage of resources to full-time students, even though part-time students likely need support more than full-time students. (However, it’s worth noting that although part-time students count in some states’ performance-based funding systems, they are currently not counted in federal graduation rate metrics.)

Students in ASAP also get priority registration privileges, which can certainly contribute to on-time degree completion. But it is not uncommon for classes (at least at desirable times) to have waiting lists, meaning that ASAP students get access to courses while other students do not. If a part-time student cannot get access to a course that he or she needs, it could mean that the student is forced to stop out of college for a semester—a substantial risk factor for degree completion.

ASAP has many promising aspects, but further study is needed to see if the degree completion gains for full-time students are coming at the expense of part-time students. Some of the ASAP services should be extended to all students, and priority registration should be reconsidered to benefit students who are truly in need to getting into a course instead of those who are able to attend full-time.

Why I’m Conflicted About College Athletics

As a college professor doing research in higher education finance and accountability policy, there are many times when my enjoyment of college athletics leaves me conflicted. I enjoy watching my beloved Wisconsin Badgers get the best of (most of) their Big Ten opponents on a regular basis, but I also recognize that at all but the few dozen wealthiest universities, college athletics are heavily subsidized by student fees. (Answering whether athletics programs are actually profitable is very difficult due to concerns with cost allocations, assumptions about whether students are induced to attend because of athletics, and how revenue is disbursed.)

In the past year, colleges in the “Power Five” athletic conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast, Pacific-12, and Southeastern Conferences) gained additional autonomy from the rest of the NCAA. They then voted to increase athletic scholarships by $2,000-$4,000 per year per athlete to cover the full cost of attendance, which is definitely a good thing for those athletes. Other Division I colleges can choose to also increase scholarships, but not without significant budgetary implications. For a college with 250 scholarship athletes (not an unrealistic number for a college with football), the cost could approach one million dollars per year. My concern is that those increases are likely to be funded out of the pockets of students and/or by cutting non-revenue sports like wrestling and track and field.

Other things that college athletic programs do are unambiguously bad for athletes. A recent example of this is with national letters of intent, which bind athletes to a college at the end of the recruiting process. Earlier this month, prized linebacker recruit Roquan Smith made news by accepting a football scholarship from the University of Georgia (switching from UCLA) without signing the letter of intent. Once a letter is signed, a student cannot transfer without losing eligibility unless the college decides to let the student out. In the meantime, coaches often leave for other jobs without facing any employment restrictions.

As a professor, I also worry about the increased number of televised weeknight games long distances from campus that cause athletes difficulties attending class. It’s great to get exposure for your college on national television (and get serious television dollars), but this places a burden on athletes and faculty who work with those students. But if I’m not teaching one evening and a good game is on, will I watch it? Quite possibly. Should I? No.

I’m curious to get readers’ thoughts about how they manage the pros and cons of big-time college athletics. Even when the game is going on, I can’t help think about the students and the dollar signs behind them.

[NOTE: A previous version of the post incorrectly noted that Mr. Smith was intending to enroll at UCLA instead of the University of Georgia. Thanks to Ed Kilgore for pointing out this error.]

The FY 2016 Obama Budget: A Few Surprises

The Obama Administration released their $3.999 trillion budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2016, and the higher education portion of the budget was largely as expected. Some proposals, such as increasing research funding, providing a bonus pool of funds for colleges with high graduation rates, and reallocating the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant to be based on current financial need instead of an antiquated formula, were repeats from previous years. Others, such as the idea of tuition-free community college, had already been sketched out. And one controversial proposal—the plan to tax new 529 college savings plans—had already been nixed, but remained in the budget document due to a “printing deadline.”

But the budget proposal (the vast majority of which is dead on arrival in a GOP Congress thanks to differences in viewpoints and preferred budget levels) did have some surprising details. The three most interesting higher education-related details are below.

(1) “Universal” free community college isn’t exactly universal. Pages 59 and 60 of the education budget proposal noted that students with a family Adjusted Gross Income of over $200,000 would be ineligible for tuition-free community college. Although this detail was apparently decided before the program was announced, the Obama Administration for some reason chose to hide that detail from the public until Monday. As the picture shows below, only 2.7% of dependent community college students had family incomes above $200,000 in 2011-12 (data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study).


But in order to get family income, students have to file the FAFSA. Research by Lyle McKinney and Heather Novak suggests that 42% of low-income community college students didn’t file the FAFSA in 2007-08, meaning that something big needs to be done to get these students to file. Requiring the FAFSA also means that noncitizens typically would not qualify for free community college, something that is likely to upset advocates for “dreamer” students (but make many on the Right happy).

Additionally, as Susan Dynarski at the University of Michigan pointed out, the GPA requirements (a 2.5 instead of a 2.0) make a big difference. In 2011-12, 15.9% of Pell recipients had GPAs between a 2.0 and 2.49, meaning they would not qualify for free community college.



(2) Asset questions may be off the FAFSA. The budget document called for the following changes to the FAFSA, including the elimination of assets (thanks to Ben Miller at New America for the screenshot):



Getting rid of assets won’t affect most families, as research by Susan Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton shows. But it does matter more to selective colleges, more of which might turn to additional financial aid forms like the CSS/PROFILE to get the information they want. Policymakers should take the benefits of FAFSA simplicity as well as the potential costs to students of additional forms into account.

(3) Mum’s the word on college ratings. After last year’s budget featured $10 million for the development of the Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS), this year’s budget had no mention. Inside Higher Ed reported that ratings will be developed using existing funds and using existing personnel. Will that slow down the development of ratings? Given the slow progress at this point, it’s hard to argue otherwise.

Finally, the budget document also contained details about the “true” default rate for student loans, using the life of the loan instead of the 3-year default window used for accountability purposes. The results aren’t pretty for undergraduate students, with default rates pushing 23% on undergraduate Stafford loans. But default rates for graduate loans hover around 6%-7%, which is roughly the interest rates many of these students face.



What are your thoughts on the President’s budget proposal for higher education? Please share them in the comments section.