|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Educational Quality; Models; Stakeholders; Employer Attitudes; Questionnaires; Outcomes of Education; Resources; Sustainable Development; Educational Finance; Employment Potential; Training; College Graduates; Achievement; Research and Development; Theory Practice Relationship
Abstract:
The present paper proposes a theoretical model of institutional quality of a higher education institution (HEI) which, in addition to the internal dimensions of quality, incorporates also the external dimension, i.e. the outcomes dimension. This dimension has been neglected by the quality standards and models examined in our paper. Furthermore, the standards and models analyzed consider stakeholders as one of the quality factors of a HEI. The stakeholders' perspective is seen as a lens through which stakeholders define, control and assess the quality of a HEI. The proposed model therefore gives stakeholders greater significance compared to the dimensions of institutional quality of a HEI. The model has been validated from the employers' perspective. On the basis of 339 completed questionnaires or a 39.74% response rate we concluded that outcomes constitute the most important dimension of institutional quality of a HEI from the perspective of employers in Slovenia. The outcomes dimension is followed, in descending order, by the non-financial resources and inputs, sustainable development, value chain, and, finally, the financial resources and inputs dimensions. The results of the study have shown that of the 44 quality factors of a HEI the following data are of key importance to employers: information on the participation of students in practical training, achievements of graduates at the workplace, implementation of a HEI's research achievements in practice, graduate employability, and a HEI's responsiveness to the demands and changes in the environment.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Fischer, Karin |
Source: |
Chronicle of Higher Education, Mar 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-04 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Job Applicants; College Graduates; Communication Skills; Employees; Career Centers; Education Work Relationship; Surveys; Adjustment (to Environment); Problem Solving; Personnel Selection; Employment Qualifications
Abstract:
Employers value a four-year college degree, many of them more than ever. Yet half of those surveyed recently by "The Chronicle" and American Public Media's "Marketplace" said they had trouble finding recent graduates qualified to fill positions at their company or organization. Nearly a third gave colleges just fair to poor marks for producing successful employees. And they dinged bachelor's-degree holders for lacking basic workplace proficiencies, like adaptability, communication skills, and the ability to solve complex problems. What gives? These days a bachelor's degree is practically a prerequisite for getting one's resume read--two-thirds of employers said they never waive degree requirements, or do so only for particularly outstanding candidates. But clearly the credential leaves employers wanting. While they use college as a sorting mechanism, to signal job candidates' discipline and drive, they think it is falling short in adequately preparing new hires. The tension may lie partly in changes in the world of work: technological transformation and evolving expectations that employees be ready to handle everything straightaway. And perhaps managers are right to expect an easier time finding employees up to the task--after all, three times the proportion of Americans have bachelor's degrees now as did a generation or two ago. While some institutions tout their career centers, internship offerings, and academic programs designed with industry input, others argue that workplace skills ought to be taught on the job. Higher education is meant to educate broadly, not train narrowly, they say: It is business that is asking too much. And if college graduates are not up to scratch, some campus leaders ask, why do employers keep hiring them? The unemployment rate for Americans with bachelor's degrees, after all, is less than 5 percent; for those with only high-school diplomas, it is nearly double. Well, because even though employers may kvetch about college graduates, they generally make better employees than those who finished only high school. If nothing else, having gone through four--or five or six--years of schooling proves that they can stick with a task.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Zhang, Lei |
Source: |
Education Economics, v21 n2 p154-175 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
College Graduates; Private Colleges; College Students; Public Colleges; Debt (Financial); Masters Programs; Marital Status; Outcomes of Education; Career Choice; Life Style; Student Financial Aid; Salaries; Ownership; Real Estate
Abstract:
This paper examines how college educational debt affects various post-baccalaureate decisions of bachelor's degree recipients. I employ the Baccalaureate and Beyond 93/97 survey data. Using college-aid policies as instrumental variables to correct for the endogeneity of student college debt level, I find that for public college graduates, college debt has a negative and significant effect on graduate school attendance. This negative effect is concentrated on more costly programs associated with doctoral, MBA, and first professional (FP) degrees, and debt has no effect on the choice of a master's program. For private college students, debt does not have an effect on the overall graduate school attendance, but this absence of effect conceals the differential effects of debt on different graduate programs--debt has a positive and significant effect on the choice of an MBA or an FP program, and a zero effect on other programs. For both public and private college students, debt has no effects on early career choices such as salary, sector of occupation, marital status, and homeownership. (Contains 7 tables and 21 notes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-24 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
College Graduates; Underemployment; Employment Patterns; Labor Utilization; Unskilled Workers; Labor Market; Education Work Relationship; Educational Attainment; Salary Wage Differentials; Majors (Students); Cost Effectiveness; Human Capital; Labor Supply; Enrollment Trends
Abstract:
Increasing numbers of recent college graduates are ending up in relatively low-skilled jobs that, historically, have gone to those with lower levels of educational attainment. This study examines this phenomenon in some detail, concluding: (1) About 48 percent of employed U.S. college graduates are in jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests requires less than a four-year college education; (2) The proportion of overeducated workers in occupations appears to have grown substantially; in 1970, fewer than one percent of taxi drivers and two percent of firefighters had college degrees, while now more than 15 percent do in both jobs; (3) About five million college graduates are in jobs the BLS says require less than a high-school education; (4) Comparing average college and high-school earnings is highly misleading as a guide for vocational success, given high college-dropout rates and the fact that overproduction of college graduates lowers recent graduate earnings relative to those graduating earlier; (5) Not all colleges are equal: Typical graduates of elite private schools make more than graduates of flagship state universities, but those graduates do much better than those attending relatively non-selective institutions; (6) Not all majors are equal: Engineering and economics graduates, for example, typically earn almost double what social work and education graduates receive by mid-career; (7) Past and projected future growth in college enrollments and the number of graduates exceeds the actual or projected growth in high-skilled jobs, explaining the development of the underemployment problem and its probable worsening in future years; and (8) Rising college costs and perceived declines in economic benefits may well lead to declining enrollments and market share for traditional schools and the development of new methods of certifying occupation competence. (Contains 12 figures, 4 tables, and 65 notes.) [This paper was written with the assistance of Anthony Hennen, Harrison Cummins, Daniel Garrett, Joseph Hartge, and Nicholas Wetzel.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (596K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-01-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Enrollment Projections; Graduation Rate; Expenditures; Educational Finance; Elementary Secondary Education; Public Schools; Private Schools; High School Graduates; Elementary School Teachers; Secondary School Teachers; Public Education; Postsecondary Education; College Graduates; Academic Degrees; Regional Characteristics; Age Differences; Gender Differences; Racial Differences; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; College Freshmen; Teacher Student Ratio; School Statistics; Educational Trends
Abstract:
"Projections of Education Statistics to 2021" is the 40th report in a series begun in 1964. It includes statistics on elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary degree-granting institutions. This report provides revisions of projections shown in "Projections of Education Statistics to 2020" and projections of enrollment, graduates, teachers, and expenditures to the year 2021. In addition to projections at the national level, the report includes projections of public elementary and secondary school enrollment and public high school graduates to the year 2021 at the state level. The projections in this report were produced by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to provide researchers, policy analysts, and others with state-level projections developed using a consistent methodology. They are not intended to supplant detailed projections prepared for individual states. Assumptions regarding the population and the economy are the key factors underlying the projections of education statistics. NCES projections do not reflect changes in national, state, or local education policies that may affect education statistics. Appended are: (1) Introduction to Projection Methodology; (2) Supplementary Tables; (3) Data Sources; (4) References; (5) List of Abbreviations; and (6) Glossary. (Contains 77 tables, 27 figures and 1 footnote.) [For "Projections of Education Statistics to 2020. Thirty-Ninth Edition. NCES 2011-026," see ED524098.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (1850K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-04-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Numerical/Quantitative Data; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Student Loan Programs; Federal Aid; Debt (Financial); Undergraduate Students; Dropouts; Comparative Analysis; College Graduates; Longitudinal Studies; Incidence; Employment; Income; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; Two Year Colleges; Proprietary Schools
Abstract:
This Statistics in Brief focuses on students who do not complete a postsecondary credential and the substantial federal education debt they accrue. Specifically, the analysis compares the cumulative debt from Stafford and Perkins loan programs of students who did not complete a degree within 6 years of first enrolling ("noncompleters") with that of their counterparts who did complete ("completers"). Students still enrolled in postsecondary education after 6 years are not included because many of these students have not yet entered repayment or formally entered the labor force and lack sufficient income data for a key measure used in the analysis. These students constitute 15 percent of beginning postsecondary students in 2009 and 14 percent in 2001 (Berkner, He, and Cataldi 2002; Skomsvold, Radford, and Berkner 2011, table 2.0A). The study is based on data from the two most recent cohorts of first-time beginning postsecondary students surveyed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): students who began postsecondary education in 1995-96 and those who began in 2003-04. Each cohort was followed for 6 years, with final data collection for each cohort occurring in 2001 and 2009, respectively. The sampled students were identified in the 1995-96 and 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS), respectively, and followed up in the corresponding Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Studies (BPS:95/01 and BPS:04/09). (Contains 3 tables, 8 figures and 9 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (1251K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-02-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Females; College Graduates; Salary Wage Differentials; Education Work Relationship; Human Capital; Labor Market; Educational Attainment; Overachievement
Abstract:
This study investigates the incidence of over-education amongst recent Australian bachelor degree graduates and its effect on their earnings. We find that between 24% and 37% of graduates were over-educated shortly after course completion, with over-education most common amongst young females and least common amongst older females. Over-education rates vary markedly across major fields of study and appear to be associated with the relative demand for graduate labour. Overeducation was less common three years after course completion; however a nontrivial proportion of graduates remain over-educated. With regard to the effect of over-education on earnings, we find a notable age-related effect not reported in earlier studies. Young over-educated graduates were not penalised after unobserved heterogeneity had been addressed, whereas older over-educated graduates were at an earnings disadvantage relative to their well-matched peers. (Contains 6 tables.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|