Blog (Kelchen on Education)

Musings from a Midwest Road Trip

One of the best things about being a faculty member is the incredible flexibility during the summer. Although I am only on a nine-month contract and have to hustle for grant or contract funding to maintain a nice standard of living (here is what I did last summer), it’s great to be in almost complete control of my schedule for three months out of the year. I had the pleasure of spending much of early June on the road in the Midwest, mixing some time with my family and friends alongside more typical academic obligations. Here are some musings from 900 miles behind the wheel across some of the most beautiful scenery in America.

After some time with my parents, my wife and I went to Kansas City for a friend’s wedding. But since we are both Truman State University alumni, we had to make a stop at the Harry S. Truman presidential library in Independence, Missouri. In the midst of all of the exhibits (including the famous Zimmermann Telegram), there was a well-worn display on some aspects of Truman’s legacy that are still being debated today. Truman is well-known in higher education circles for the commission that he established, and many of these ideas keep popping up on a regular basis.

We then took a walk in downtown Kansas City, which has been revitalized over the last decade. (Ed policy friends: you’re going to love going to AEFP there next year!) One of the downtown attractions is the College Basketball Experience, which also hosts the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame. I was struck by the graphic outside the building, which prominently featured a Creighton basketball player. This raises questions about whether players should be paid for their likenesses, even when the organization using the likeness is nonprofit.

After a gorgeous drive through corn and soybean fields (and listening to a near no-hitter on the radio), I was in Champaign, Illinois for a conference on state funding volatility in higher education hosted by the University of Illinois. Illinois knows something about the topic, but it was good to see a sense of normalcy (and construction cranes!) after a second year of consistent state funding recently came through. I presented my draft paper examining whether star research faculty members leave public research universities after state funding cuts—and I found little evidence of this. (Thanks to Eric Kelderman for this nice writeup in The Chronicle!) I also enjoyed the art outside the conference room, including this nice sign that would look great in my office.

I was then back in New Jersey for a few days to chair a dissertation defense and cut the grass before heading to Minneapolis to give a talk on higher education accountability at the Lawlor Group’s Summer Seminar for administrators at private nonprofit colleges. I usually speak with policy and scholarly audiences, so it was great to learn from a different group of people over the course of two days. It has been great to travel around for a while over the last few weeks, but now it’s nice to be back in New Jersey for a prolonged stretch of time. Time to write!

Trends in Net Prices by Family Income

I continue my look through newly-released data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study by turning to trends in the net price of attendance by family income. The net price, which is the full cost of attendance (tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, and miscellaneous living expenses) less all grant aid received, is a key college affordability measure as it represents how much money students and their families have to come up with each year to attend college. This net price can be covered by a combination of savings, work income, and student loans, but it is worth noting that student loan limits for many undergraduate students are far below the net price. This means that many families face challenges in paying for college if the net price is a large share of their income.

The first figure here shows trends (since 2004) in the percentage of family income needed to cover the net price. In 2015-16, 48% of students faced net prices of less than 25% of their family income, 20% were between 26% and 50%, 9% were between 51% and 99%, and 23% of students had net prices greater than their family incomes. The good news is that the distribution of net prices held almost constant since 2011-12 after having taken a jump during the Great Recession.

In the second figure, I break down the percentage of students with net prices higher than their family income by type of college attended. Nearly half of students attending for-profit college were in this category, which is not surprising given the high prices charged by many for-profit colleges and students’ low household incomes. About one in five students attending public and private nonprofit four-year colleges are also in this category. Meanwhile, even 18% of community college students had net prices higher than their family’s income, which is a particular concern as quite a few colleges do not allow their students to take out federal loans.

A Look at College Students’ Living Arrangements

Those of us in the research and policy worlds generally had a different college experience than most American college students have today. One example of this is where students live during college. I had a very traditional college experience, which began with me as a recent high school graduate moving into my (non-air conditioned) dorm room in Truman State University’s Ryle Hall in the sweltering August heat.[1] Yet that residential experience is not what most students experience, as I show in my fourth blog post using newly-released data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS).

As the chart below shows, only 15.6% of all undergraduate students lived on campus in the 2015-16 academic year, a percentage that has largely been consistent since 2000. 56.9% of students lived off campus away from their parent(s), while 27.5% lived off campus with their parents. Aside from a strange blip in 2011-12, these percentage have also been fairly consistent over time.[2]

This low percentage could be explained in part by students living on campus during their first year of college and then moving off campus later on in an effort to either save money or gain more independence. I then focused the next chart on the roughly 38%-40% of students who were first-year students (about 25% at four-year public and private nonprofit colleges and 50% at community colleges and for-profits) to get an idea of whether patterns changed among new students only.[3] Interestingly, the percentages of first-year students living on campus (12.9%) and off campus away from their parent(s) (53.8%) were lower than for all students, which I figured was due to the smaller percentage of four-year students among the first-year student cohort.

I then broke down student living arrangements by institutional type for the 2015-16 academic year, showing numbers both for all students and only for first-year students. The finding that will surprise many is that less than 50% of first-year students at four-year colleges live on campus, in spite of this being viewed as the traditional college experience. 49% of first-year students at private nonprofit colleges and 36% of first-year students at public four-year colleges lived on campus, while very few community colleges or for-profit colleges even have campus housing. The most common living arrangement for both the community college and for-profit sectors was to live off campus away from parent(s) , with about 60% of community college and 75% of for-profit students doing this regardless of year in college. About 40% of community college students lived with their parent(s), with private nonprofit students being least likely to do this (13%).

These data show that the “typical” residential college experience that many of us had was not the typical experience even when we went to college.[4] A more typical college student is the young woman who rang me up as a outlet mall cashier last weekend. She was an education major at the local community college and said that she lived at home to save money. After I introduced myself as a professor, she mentioned that she was hoping to continue living at home and commuting to a nearby four-year college. Although I was unable to get an extra teacher discount from her at the cash register, it was a good reminder that most students never live in a residence hall.

[1] Air conditioning matters a lot in education, folks. For empirical evidence in a K-12 setting, see this great new NBER working paper by Josh Goodman and colleagues.

[2] Fellow data nerds, any idea what happened in 2011-12? I looked at each sector and the pattern is still there (with it being strongest among four-year colleges). For that reason, I am hesitant to place much value on the 2011-12 off campus percentages.

[3] I used the NPSAS variable of year in school for financial aid purposes, as the year in school for credit accumulation purposes could be skewed based on attendance status. However, the general pattern of results held across both definitions.

[4] I’m represented by the 2003-04 NPSAS cohort, where about 46% of first-year students on public university campuses lived in residence halls.

Trends in Zero EFC Receipt

In my third blog post using newly-released data from the 2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), I turn my attention away from graduate and professional students and toward undergraduate students. Here, I update a 2015 article that I wrote for the Journal of Student Financial Aid examining trends in the share and types of students who have an expected family contribution of zero—the students who have the least financial ability to pay for college and thus qualify for the maximum Pell Grant.

Using the handy TrendStats tool on the National Center for Education Statistics’s DataLab website, I looked at six NPSAS waves from the 1995-96 to 2015-16 and pulled data for all students and then by student and institutional characteristics. The full spreadsheet can be downloaded here (including data by gender and age that I do not cover in this post), and I go through some of the highlights below.

Overall, the percentage of students with a zero EFC has steadily increased every four years since the 1999-2000 academic year in spite of ebbs and flows in the economy. Part of this is likely due to changes in the rules of who automatically qualifies for a zero EFC based on family income and means-tested benefit receipt (currently, the income limit is $25,000 per year), but increased student diversity in American higher education also plays a role. The percentages in each year are as follows:

1995-96: 18.6%

1999-2000: 17.7%

2003-04: 20.7%

2007-08: 25.4%

2011-12: 37.9%

2015-16: 39.1%

There are stark differences in the percentage of students with a zero EFC by dependency status that have grown larger over time. Independent students with dependents of their own have always been the most likely to have a zero EFC, especially because childcare obligations often limit work hours (resulting in a lower household income). The percentage of students in this category with a zero EFC remained between 35 and 40 percent through 2007-08 before spiking to 61% in 2011-12 and 67.3% in 2015-16. Dependents and independent students with no dependents had generally similar zero EFC rates in the teens through 2003-04, but then independent students started to qualify for zero EFCs at much higher rates. By 2015-16, the gap grew to 18 percentage points (42.2% versus 24.2%).

Turning next to institutional type, for-profit colleges (which tend to enroll more independent students with families of their own) have traditionally had higher zero EFC rates than other sectors. 62.2% of students at for-profits had a zero EFC in 2015-16, up from 56.8% in the last NPSAS wave and around 40% before the Great Recession. In the 1990s, community colleges, public 4-year colleges, and private nonprofit 4-year colleges all had zero EFC rates of around 15%. Community colleges’ rates passed 40% in 2011-12, while four-year public and nonprofit colleges’ rates exceeded 30% in 2015-16. Notably, the percentage of zero EFC students at four-year private nonprofit colleges jumped from 25.7% to 30.5% in this NPSAS wave, a much larger increase than among public 4-year colleges.

Readers of my last two blog posts should not be terribly surprised to see that African-American students have been the most likely to have a zero EFC across the last six NPSAS administrations, although there was a slight decrease between 2011-12 and 2015-16 (60.0% to 58.2%). American Indian/Alaska Native students had the next highest zero EFC percentage (51.2%), followed by Hispanic/Latino students (47.6%), Asian students (39.2%), and white students (29.8%). Multiracial students saw an increase in zero EFC rates from 39.1% to 41.8%, but this group is not shown in the chart due to changes in how the Department of Education has classified race and ethnicity over time.

Finally, I examine zero EFC receipt trends by parental education—beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year due to changes in the survey question following the 1995-96 NPSAS. There is a clear relationship between parental education and zero EFC rates, with more than half of all students whose parents never attended college having a zero EFC in 2015-16 and progressively lower rates for students with highly-educated parents. However, two trends stand out among non-first-generation students. The largest increase in zero EFC rates by parental education in the last two NPSAS waves was among families with some college experience or an associate degree (rising from 37.9% to 42.6%). Meanwhile, even among students who had at least one parent with a graduate degree, 27.5% still qualified for a zero EFC.

Readers, if there are any pieces of the new NPSAS data that you would like me to examine in a future blog post, leave me a note in the comments section or send me a tweet. I’m happy to dig into other pieces of the dataset!

What Explains Racial Gaps in Large Graduate Student Debt Burdens?

In my previous blog post, I used brand-new data from the 2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) to look at trends in debt burdens among graduate students. The data point that quickly got the most attention was the growth in the percentage of African-American graduate students with at least $100,000 in debt between their undergraduate and graduate programs, with 30% of black students having six-figure debt burdens in 2015-16 compared to just 12% of white borrowers. This means that roughly 150,000 black borrowers had $100,000 in debt, more than half of the number of white borrowers with the same debt level (250,000) despite white graduate student enrollment being four times as white as black grad student enrollment.

My next step is to examine whether the black-white borrowing gap could be explained by other demographic and educational factors. I ran two logistic regressions with the outcome of interest being $100,000 or more in total educational debt using PowerStats, with the results presented in odds ratios. (To interpret odds ratios, note that they are percent changes from 1. So a coefficient of 0.5 means that something is 50% less likely to happen and 1.5 means that something is 50% more likely to happen.) The first regression below only controls for race/ethnicity.

Table 1: Partial regression predicting likelihood of $100,000 or more in debt among graduate students.
  Coefficient (Odds Ratio)    
Characteristic 95% CI p-value
Race/ethnicity (reference: white)
  Black or African American 2.50 (1.91, 3.26) 0.000
  Hispanic or Latino 1.12 (0.89, 1.41) 0.347
  Asian 0.62 (0.46, 0.83) 0.002
  American Indian or Alaska Native 1.31 (0.49, 3.50) 0.595
  Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 1.35 (0.38, 4.74) 0.640
  More than one race 1.73 (1.08, 2.77) 0.023
Source: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2015-16.    

 

This shows that black students were 150% more likely to have six-figure debt than white students (p<.001), while Asian students were 38% less likely (p<0.01). Hispanic students had a slightly higher point estimate, but it was not statistically significant.

I then controlled for a number of factors that could be associated with high graduate student debt amounts, including other demographic characteristics (gender, age, and marital status), level of study (master’s or doctoral), institution type, and field of study. The regression results are shown below.

Table 2: Full regression predicting likelihood of $100,000 or more in debt among graduate students.
  Coefficient (Odds Ratio)    
Characteristic 95% CI p-value
Race/ethnicity (reference: white)
  Black or African American 2.30 (1.79, 2.97) 0.000
  Hispanic or Latino 1.03 (0.80, 1.33) 0.828
  Asian 0.69 (0.48, 0.98) 0.036
  American Indian or Alaska Native 0.97 (0.25, 3.77) 0.964
  Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 1.61 (0.44, 5.84) 0.468
  More than one race 1.82 (1.12, 2.95) 0.015
Female 1.00 (0.84, 1.19) 0.990
Age as of 12/31/2015 1.04 (1.03, 1.04) 0.000
Marital status (reference: single)
  Married 0.68 (0.55, 0.85) 0.001
  Separated 0.94 (0.51, 1.73) 0.840
Graduate institution (reference: public)
  Private nonprofit 1.64 (1.36, 1.98) 0.000
  For-profit 2.15 (1.64, 2.82) 0.000
Graduate degree program (reference: master’s)
  Research doctorate 3.00 (2.38, 3.78) 0.000
  Professional doctorate 7.07 (5.61, 8.90) 0.000
Field of study (reference: education)
  Humanities 0.99 (0.66, 1.48) 0.943
  Social/behavioral sciences 1.85 (1.38, 2.48) 0.000
  Life sciences 1.71 (1.14, 2.56) 0.009
  Math/Engineering/Computer science 0.34 (0.20, 0.57) 0.000
  Business/management 0.91 (0.64, 1.28) 0.577
  Health 1.93 (1.47, 2.53) 0.000
  Law 1.38 (0.90, 2.11) 0.140
  Others 1.26 (0.89, 1.79) 0.186
Source: National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2015-16.    

 

Notably, the coefficient for being African-American (relative to white) decreased slightly in the regression with additional control variables. Black students were 130% more likely to have six-figure debt burdens than white students, down from 150% in the previous regression. Not surprisingly, doctoral students, students at private nonprofit and for-profit colleges, and students studying health, life sciences, and social/behavioral sciences were more likely to have $100,000 in debt than public university students, master’s students, and those studying education. Meanwhile, STEM students were far less likely to have $100,000 in debt than education students, which is not surprising given the large number of assistantships available in STEM fields.

This regression strongly suggests that the black/white gap in large student debt burdens cannot be explained by other demographic characteristics or individuals’ fields of study. Financial resources (such as the large wealth gap between black and white families) are likely to blame, but this is not well-measured in the NPSAS. The best proxy is a student’s expected family contribution (EFC), which only measures a student’s own resources as an adult student. Including EFC as a variable in the model brings the black/white gap down to 120% (not shown here for the sake of brevity), but a good measure of wealth likely shrinks the gap by a much larger amount.

Examining Trends in Graduate Student Debt by Race and Ethnicity

For many of us in the higher education world, the release of the newest wave of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is something akin to a national holiday. The NPSAS is a nationally-representative dataset of both undergraduate and graduate students that has provided a snapshot every four years of the state of how students pay for higher education. (Going forward, there will be a new dataset produced every two years, which is great news!) The 2015-16 NPSAS dropped on Tuesday morning, which sent nerds everywhere running to their computers to run numbers via PowerStats.

In this post, I look at graduate student borrowing, which is of increasing interest to policymakers given the average size of graduate student loan burdens and the potential implications for taxpayers thanks to income-driven repayment and Public Service Loan Forgiveness. I used the TrendStats tool to look at graduate student loan debt by race/ethnicity every four years from 2000 to 2016, based on concerns raised by Judith Scott-Clayton about the growth in student debt among African-American students.

The first figure looks at overall trends in graduate student borrowing across each of the five cohorts. The percentage with no debt fell from 51% in 2000 to 39% in 2008 before remaining steady throughout the rest of the period. Meanwhile, the percentage with at least $50,000 in debt (for both undergraduate and graduate school) went up from 9% in 2000 to 32% in 2016, with a steady upward trend across every cohort. The increases were even larger among those with more than $100,000 in debt, with that share going from 1.5% to 14.2% during this period. (The introduction of Grad PLUS loans in 2006 probably didn’t hurt that trend, although the jump between 2008 and 2012 was larger than the jump between 2004 and 2008.)

I broke down the borrowing data by race/ethnicity to look at the percentage of graduate students with no debt at all across each cohort. Across each cohort, at least 60% of Asian students had no debt, while the percentage of white students with no debt was 51% in 2000 before meandering around 40% in more recent cohorts. Forty-five percent of Hispanic students had no debt in 2000, which steadily fell to 27% in 2016. Among African-American students, however, the percentage with no debt fell from 37% in 2000 to 17% in both 2012 and 2016. Part of this may be due to the higher likelihood of black students to study in fields with fewer graduate assistantships (such as education), but family resources likely play a crucial role here.

Finally, I examined the percentage of students with at least $100,000 in educational debt by race and ethnicity. All groups of students started out at between one and two percent with six-figure debts in 2000, but those rates quickly diverged. By 2012, 7% of Asian students, 11% of white students, 14% of Hispanic students, and 21% of black students had at least $100,000 in educational debt. In the newest NPSAS wave, all racial/ethnic groups except black students stayed within one percentage point of their 2012 level. But in 2016, an astonishing 30% of African-American graduate students had at least $100,000 in debt—nearly three times the rate of white students.

In future posts, I will look at some other interesting tidbits from the new NPSAS data. But for right now, these graphics are so depressing that I need to step away and work on something else. Student loan debt isn’t a crisis for all students, but it’s an increasingly urgent matter for African-American students in particular as well as for taxpayers who will be expected to pay for at least partial loan forgiveness.

[Check out my next post for some regressions that explore the extent to which the black/white gap in the percentage of grad students with $100,000 in debt can be explained by other factors.]

Is Administrative Bloat Really a Big Problem?

I usually begin talks on my book Higher Education Accountability with a discussion of why accountability pressures now are stronger than ever for much of nonprofit higher education. Not surprisingly, one of the key reasons that I discuss is the rising price tag of a college education. I usually get at least one question from audience members in every talk about the extent to which administrative bloat in higher education is driving up college prices. I have written before about how difficult it is to pin the rising cost of providing a college education on any given factor, but I am diving in deeper on the administrative bloat concern in this post.

First, let’s take a look at trends in administrative expenditures and staffing over the last decade or two. Here are charts on inflation-adjusted per-FTE expenditures for instruction, academic support, institutional support, and student services between 2003 and 2013 (courtesy of Delta Cost Project analyses). The charts show that spending on student services and academic support increased faster than both inflation and instructional expenditures, while institutional support expenditures (the IPEDS expenditure category most closely associated with administration) increased about as fast as instructional expenditures.

Turning to staffing trends, I again use Delta Cost Project data to look at the ratios of full-time faculty, part-time faculty, administrators, and staff per 1,000 FTE students. In general, the ratio of full-time faculty and administrators per 1,000 students held fairly constant across time in most sections of higher education. However, the ratio of part-time faculty and professional staff members (lower-level administrators) increased markedly across higher education.

The data suggest that there has not been a massive explosion of high-level administrators, but there has been substantial growth in low- to mid-level academic support and student services staff members. What might be behind that growth in professional staff members? I offer two potential explanations below.

Explanation 1: Students need/want more services than in the past. As most colleges have enrolled increasingly diverse student bodies and institutions respond to pressures to graduate more students, it’s not surprising that colleges have hired additional staff members to assist with academic and social engagement. Students have also demanded additional services, such as more staff members to support campus diversity initiatives. (Lazy rivers and climbing walls could factor in here, but there are limited to such a small segment of higher education that they’re likely to be a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.)

Explanation 2: Staff members are doing tasks that faculty members used to do, which may not necessarily be a bad thing. A good example here is academic advising. Decades ago, it was far more common for faculty members to advise undergraduate students from their first year on. But over the years, professional academic advisers have taken on these responsibilities at many campuses, leaving faculty members to advise juniors and seniors within a major. To me, it seems logical to allow lower-paid professional advisers to work with first-year and second-year students, freeing up the time of higher-paid faculty members to do something else such as teach or do research. (I also have a strong hunch that professional advisers are better at helping students through general education requirements than faculty members, but I’d love to see more research on that point.)

In summary, there are lots of gripes coming from both faculty members and the public about the number of assistant and associate deans on college campuses. But most of the growth in non-faculty employees is among lower-level student and academic affairs staff members, not among highly-paid deans. There is still room for a robust debate about the right number of staff members and administrators, but claims of massive administrative bloat are not well-supported across all of higher education.

It’s hard to believe that a faculty member is writing this, but I do feel that most administrators do serve a useful purpose. As I told The Chronicle of Higher Education in a recent interview (conducted via e-mail while I was waiting for a meeting with an associate dean—I kid you not!), “Faculty do complain about all of the assistant and associate deans out there, but this workload would otherwise fall on faculty. And given the research, teaching, and service expectations that we face, we can’t take on those roles.”

Will The K-12 Teacher Walkouts Affect Public Higher Education?

Perhaps the most interesting education policy development to this point in 2018 has been the walkouts by public school teachers in three states (Kentucky, Oklahoma, and West Virginia) that have resulted in thousands of schools being closed as teachers descended on statehouses to demand better pay. These job actions (which are technically not strikes in some states due to labor laws, but operate in the same way) have been fairly successful for teachers to this point. West Virginia teachers received a five percent pay increase to end their walkout, while Oklahoma teachers received a pay increase of about $6,000. Kentucky teachers had rather limited success, while Arizona is on the verge of a teacher walkout later this week.

Given the success of these walkouts in politically conservative states, it is reasonable to expect K-12 public school teachers in other states to adopt the same tactics to increase their salaries or education funding in general. But what might these walkouts mean for public higher education? I present four possible scenarios below.

Scenario 1: Future K-12 teacher walkouts are ineffective. It’s probably safe to say that legislators in other states are strategizing about how to respond to a potential walkout in their state. If legislators do not want to increase K-12 education spending and can maintain a unified front, it’s possible that protests die out amid concerns that closing schools for days at a time hurts students. In that case, expect no implications for public higher education.

Scenario 2: Public college employees join the walkout movement. Seeing the victories that K-12 teachers have scored, faculty and staff walk out at public colleges in an effort to secure more higher education funding. While this could theoretically work, public support is likely to be much weaker for colleges and universities than K-12 teachers. Republicans in particular now view college professors far more skeptically than Democrats, while the two parties view K-12 public schools similarly. So this probably won’t work too well in conservative states.

Scenario 3: Future K-12 teacher walkouts are effective—and paid for by tax increases. Oklahoma paid for its increase in teacher salaries by increasing taxes in a number of different areas, although teachers wanted a capital gains tax exemption to be eliminated. This probably reduces states’ ability to raise additional revenue in the future—which could affect public colleges—but the immediate effects on public colleges should be pretty modest.

Scenario 4: Future K-12 teacher walkouts are effective—and paid for by reducing state spending in other areas. This is the nightmare scenario for public higher education. Higher education has traditionally been used as the balancing wheel in state budgets, with the sector being the first to experience budget cuts due to the presence of tuition-paying students. Therefore, in a zero-sum budget game without tax increases, more K-12 spending may come at the expense of higher education spending. West Virginia paid for its teacher pay increase this year in part by cutting Medicaid spending, but don’t expect most states to take that path in the longer term.

To sum up, the higher education community should be watching the K-12 walkouts very closely, as they could affect postsecondary students and faculty. And there may end up being some difficult battles in tax-averse states between K-12 and higher education advocates about how to divide a fixed amount of funds among themselves.

Why ACICS Will Likely Close Soon

The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) has had a rather eventful last few years. The onetime accreditor of ITT Tech, Corinthian Colleges, and hundreds of other vocationally-focused colleges (primarily in the for-profit sector) was stripped of its ability to recognize colleges for federal financial aid purposes by the U.S. Department of Education in December 2016. This meant that 269 ACICS-accredited colleges serving 527,000 students had 18 months (until June 12, 2018) to find a new accreditor or their students would no longer have access to federal grants or student loans.

While ACICS-accredited colleges scrambled to find a new accreditor, ACICS sued the U.S. Department of Education in federal court on the grounds that their accreditation was unfairly terminated. In late March, a federal judge agreed with ACICS that there had been a procedural violation and sent the case back to the Department of Education to be reconsidered. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos took a different view than former Secretary John King, announcing last week that ACICS would be allowed to become a recognized accreditor once again while ED continues to review the case.

Secretary DeVos’s decision gives ACICS at least a temporary reprieve by resetting the clock on how long ACICS-recognized colleges can receive federal financial aid—and this not surprisingly resulted in howls of protest from representatives of liberal-leaning organizations. But although ACICS will continue to exist in the short term, I expect that ACICS will no longer exist in five years. I explain the two reasons for my prediction below.

First, most ACICS-accredited colleges have already moved to another accreditor or are in the process of doing so. A Center for American Progress analysis shows that just 19 of the 269 colleges that were a part of ACICS are likely still open and have not made a clear move toward another accreditor. A number of colleges have already closed, while others are well on the road to accreditation. The 19 colleges that will likely stick with ACICS have about 25,000 students—making it financially difficult for ACICS to continue with such a small membership.

Second, I don’t think that ACICS’s reputation can ever recover from the experience of having accredited ITT Tech and Corinthian and then having its federal recognition stripped by the Obama administration. Although ACICS has a goal of being “a leader among accreditors,” any college that seeks ACICS accreditation is taking a sizable risk at this point. Blue-state attorneys general will likely continue to investigate ACICS given their longstanding opposition to the body, and future Democratic presidents may try to derecognize ACICS in an effort to undo the Trump administration’s actions. Large for-profits are also likely to avoid ACICS due to concerns from shareholders, and smaller for-profits may not be enough for the organization to make ends meet.

As far as I know, ACICS may be making real strides toward raising their standards and improving student outcomes. But any efforts they are undertaking are likely to be in vain as colleges try to find a safer harbor, resulting in their eventual collapse.

New Higher Education Policy Voice: Dominique Baker

Dominique Baker (@bakerdphd) is a second-year assistant professor of education policy at Southern Methodist University, where her research focuses on student financial aid and equity in higher education. A prolific scholar (her CV is available here), her work addresses policy-relevant topics in a way that should be the goal of every assistant professor. (Also, SMU does a great job highlighting the research of their faculty members, which is a nice model for other universities to follow.) Her work is informed by her time working in college access, including one year in the Virginia College Advising Corps and three years in the admissions office at the University of Virginia. Her experience working with students from lower-income families led her to do research on student financial aid and allows her to bring real-world experience to studying the topic.

Along with my Seton Hall colleague Richard Blissett—another great junior faculty member—Dominque published an article in The Journal of Higher Education examining potential factors associated with the development of student diversity movements on college campuses. The article got quite a bit of media coverage, including a piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Dominique also published a great article in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science with Will Doyle of Vanderbilt examining whether community college students who borrow have different academic trajectories than those who do not. They find a relatively small negative relationship between borrowing and long-term credit attainment, which adds to an interesting literature on the effects of debt.

Note: This is the final installment in the New Higher Education Policy Voices series for 2018. Please keep sending along recommendations for great people to keep an eye on, as I hope to do another series in the future. Here are the other individuals in this series:

Chris Marsicano, Vanderbilt University

Denisa Gándara, Southern Methodist University

Ellie Bruecker, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Oded Gurantz, Stanford University (University of Missouri-Columbia in fall 2018)

Amy Li, University of Northern Colorado

Benjamin Skinner, University of Virginia

Kelly Rosinger, Penn State University