Your search found 5470 results.

Descriptors:
Student Costs; Bachelors Degrees; Public Colleges; Electronic Learning; Competency Based Education; Private Colleges; Proprietary Schools; Academic Advising; Public Opinion

Abstract:
In August 2010, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, speaking informally at a technology conference, said technological innovations should be able to lower the cost of college to $2,000 a year. Mr. Gates's comments reportedly caught the attention of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican of Texas, who came up with his own back-of-the-envelope estimate of how much college should cost: Multiplying $2,000 times four and adding $2,000 for the cost of books or other learning materials, the governor decided that a bachelor's degree should cost $10,000. In February 2011, Mr. Perry challenged public colleges in his state to create a $10,000 degree. Several of them have answered the call. From Texas, the idea of a $10,000 bachelor's degree has spread like an Internet meme to governors in Florida and Wisconsin, a state legislator in California, and some national online colleges. But the growing attention to the bargain-basement bachelor's degree is not just an indication of how an idea can quickly take hold with the public and lawmakers. The idea itself has become a kind of Rorschach test for how people view American higher education, what they think its role should be, and whom or what they blame for its shortfalls. Like a lot of things that get passed around on the Internet, Mr. Gates's comments became obscured by the interpretation. What he went on to say was that college costs would diminish because place-based higher education would become "five times less important" in five years. But in the rush to answer the subsequent gubernatorial challenges, the proposals that have emerged in Florida and Texas, in particular, have relied largely on shifting some costs of the traditional college model from the state to some other entity, such as businesses, community colleges, secondary schools, and even the student. In other words, the $10,000 degree will still cost more than $10,000. 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

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

Descriptors:
Student Financial Aid; Income; College Freshmen; Paying for College; Public Colleges; Selective Admission; Private Colleges; Costs

Abstract:
We examine college affordability under the existing pricing and financial aid system that awards both non need-based and need-based aid. Using data of freshmen attending a large number of selective private and public colleges in the USA, we find that the prices students actually pay for college have increased over time. Need-based grant aid has not kept pace with the substantial increases in non need-based aid. Most importantly, although low-income students received more subsidies than higher-income students, the existing financial aid system does not provide enough affordability to needy students. Nonetheless, the deficiency cannot be attributed to the increases in non need-based aid. (Contains 5 tables, 4 figures 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

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Educational Change; Administrators; Private Colleges; Humanities; College Curriculum; Tuition; Tutoring; College Instruction; College Faculty; College Students; Student Attitudes

Abstract:
This article profiles A.C. Grayling, a British intellectual who pioneers a new model for college. In his role as founder of the New College of the Humanities, Britain's newest and most controversial institution of higher education, A.C. Grayling could have chosen among several titles. The senior academic officer at most English higher-education institutions is known as vice chancellor, with a few rectors and a provost and a president or two in the mix. In Scotland, the customary title is principal. Mr. Grayling, however, has opted for master, an honorific with long antecedents at the colleges that make up England's two oldest universities, Oxford and Cambridge. In June 2011, Mr. Grayling announced his intention to establish the New College of the Humanities, with the involvement--and investment--of a handful of fellow academic celebrities. His goal was to bridge what he sees as the growing gap between higher education and the needs of contemporary society. Though his concerns are echoed by many other critics of mainstream universities, both in Britain and elsewhere, his solution is unique. Unlike so many other recent ventures, Mr. Grayling's attempt to devise a new higher-education paradigm for the 21st century is rooted in the American liberal-arts model and the individualized tutorial system that once prevailed at Oxford and Cambridge. "This is a college for the humanities," he says, and its emphasis on the study of philosophy, history, literature, law, and economics is designed to provide its students with the intellectual equipment that will enable them to organize ideas and muster arguments, even in the face of challenges that "we can't even envisage yet." In marrying those fundamentals of American liberal-arts education to the rigorous training that the classic tutorial system provides, Mr. Grayling says his goal is to create what is sometimes called the T-shaped thinker, one with both breadth and depth. The premise seems simple enough and, especially for an American audience, relatively uncontroversial. But when Mr. Grayling announced what he was planning, there was an outcry. Critics, calling the venture a vanity exercise, accused him of selling a bill of goods to a set of rich kids and undermining the rest of British higher education while he was at it. 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

Descriptors:
Student Loan Programs; Loan Repayment; College Students; Institutional Characteristics; Proprietary Schools; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; Two Year Colleges; Graduation Rate; Minority Group Students

Abstract:
This paper examines the institutional determinants of federal loan status for a recent cohort of college students. We first set out how institutions influence loan accumulations and repayment rates, with particular focus on for-profit colleges. We then test a set of hypotheses about loan status and repayment using national data on loans, defaults, and repayments merged with college-level data. For all measures of loan status there are significant raw gaps between for-profit colleges and public and not-for-profit colleges. After controlling for student characteristics, measures of college quality, and college practices, large gaps in loan balance per student remain: students in for-profit colleges, especially the 2-year colleges, borrow approximately four times as much as they would have at a 2-year public college. For a student attending the "average" college, their repayment rate is predicted to be 5 [9] percentage points lower if that college is for-profit compared to public [non-profit]. Repayment rates are also lower for colleges with higher proportions of minority students and with lower graduation rates; contrary to some claims, single-program institutions appear to have higher repayment rates. 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

Descriptors:
Grants; Private Colleges; Institutional Characteristics; Universities; Graduation; Scores; Full Time Equivalency; Predictor Variables; School Size; College Entrance Examinations; Expenditure per Student; Correlation; Graduation Rate; Probability; Undergraduate Students; Academic Persistence; Student Characteristics; Personality Theories; Regression (Statistics); Models

Abstract:
Graduation outcomes are analyzed at public and private baccalaureate colleges and universities in the United States. The purpose is to determine the effect of institutional characteristics on a binary indicator of college graduation. The effect of the percentage of Pell grant recipients on graduation outcomes is of primary interest, controlling for other covariates. Institutional characteristics have a major effect on college graduation outcomes. Key institutional variables that appear to have the largest effect on graduation outcomes include percent Pell recipients, private college status, and institutional average SAT scores. College size and expenditures per FTE student have a direct but more moderate relationship to graduation outcomes. Implications for baccalaureate education are discussed. (Contains 1 figure and 9 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

Descriptors:
Dual Enrollment; High School Students; Postsecondary Education; High Schools; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; Two Year Colleges; School Size; Courses; Enrollment Trends; Enrollment Rate; Eligibility; College Credits; College Faculty; Secondary School Teachers; Teacher Qualifications; Tuition; At Risk Students; Distance Education; College Admission; Admission Criteria; Curriculum; Academic Degrees; Pupil Personnel Services; National Surveys

Abstract:
This report provides descriptive national data on the prevalence and characteristics of dual enrollment programs at postsecondary institutions in the United States. For this survey, dual enrollment refers to high school students earning college credits for courses taken through a postsecondary institution. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) previously collected data on dual enrollment and dual credit for the 2002-03 academic year from postsecondary institutions and high schools (Kleiner and Lewis 2005; Waits, Setzer, and Lewis 2005). To gather current data on dual enrollment and dual credit, NCES fielded an updated survey of postsecondary institutions on dual enrollment and a complementary survey of high schools on dual credit. The study presented in this report collected information for the 2010-11 academic year from postsecondary institutions on the enrollment of high school students in college-level courses within and outside of dual enrollment programs, and dual enrollment program characteristics. NCES, part of the Institute of Education Sciences, conducted this survey in fall 2011 using the Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS). PEQIS is a survey system designed to collect small amounts of issue-oriented data from a nationally representative sample of institutions with minimal burden on respondents and within a relatively short period of time. Because the purpose of this report is to introduce new NCES data from this survey through the presentation of tables containing descriptive information, only selected findings are presented. These findings have been chosen to demonstrate the range of information available from the PEQIS dual enrollment study rather than to discuss all of the data collected; they are not meant to emphasize any particular issue. The findings are based on self-reported data from postsecondary institutions. Appended are: (1) Standard Error Tables; (2) Technical Notes; and (3) Questionnaire. (Contains 31 tables and 13 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 (1065K)

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Comparative Education; Public Sector; Higher Education; Stakeholders; Government Role; Commercialization; Role of Education; Educational History; Private Colleges; Equal Education; Public Policy; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Policy Formation; Educational Change; International Education; Politics of Education; Government School Relationship; Governance; Institutional Autonomy

Abstract:
The relationship between the state and higher education institutions has always been a complex one. The "state" itself in this context is a heterogeneous mix of elite people--bureaucrats, politicians, committees of co-opted academics and business leader--and it increasingly faces pressures from diverse stakeholders, including students (themselves an increasingly diverse community), staff, families, employers and businesses (local, regional and multinational). This volume explores the rapidly evolving relationship between the state and higher education in Europe and in East Asia through a combination of empirical studies, secondary analyses and personal observations from many of the leading scholars in the field of comparative education studies. A scenario emerges where the state seeks to encourage stakeholder influence, while, at the same time, acts to moderate such influence in order to ensure that wider objectives are satisfied; markets are controlled, elements of demand and supply are manipulated and funding is targeted to meet particular policy priorities through a model that is described as "controlled stakeholder steering" which offers a new explanation of the relationship between the state and higher education, certainly in the countries addressed in this book. Contents include: (1) The State and Higher Education Institutions: new pressures, new relationships and new tensions (John Taylor); (2) The Changing Roles of the State and the Market in Japanese, Korean and British Higher Education: lessons for continental Europe? (Roger Goodman); (3) Universities, the State and Geography: perspectives from the United Kingdom and Japan (Fumi Kitagawa); (4) State-Academy Relations in the United Kingdom, 1960-2010 (Ivor Crewe); (5) United Kingdom Higher Education and the Binary Dilemma: whatever happened to public sector higher education? (David Watson); (6) What Japan Tells us about the State and the Future of Higher Education in France (Christian Galan); (7) German Higher Education and the State: a critical appraisal in the light of post-Bologna reforms (Hubert Ertl); (8) Reforming Italian Universities: dynamic conservatism and policy change, 1989-2010 (Paola Mattei); (9) Japanese Higher Education and the State in Transition (Motohisa Kaneko); (10) The State and Private Higher Education in Japan: the end of egalitarian policy? (Aya Yoshida); (11) The State's Role and Quasi-Market in Higher Education: Japan's trilemma (Takehiko Kariya); (12) The (Un)changing Relationship between the State and Higher Education in South Korea: some surprising continuities (Terri Kim); and (13) Afterword (Ronald Dore). 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

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)

Descriptors:
College Freshmen; Remedial Instruction; Enrollment; College Readiness; Public Colleges; Private Colleges; Two Year Colleges; Selective Admission; Student Characteristics; Majors (Students); Associate Degrees; Bachelors Degrees; Differences

Abstract:
A primary goal of the U.S. Department of Education's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Blueprint for Reform is to improve the college readiness of high school graduates (U.S. Department of Education 2010). College readiness is a complex benchmark and has been measured in several ways, including transcript analysis (Adelman 2006) and standardized test scores (ACT 2005). One such measure, and the focus of this Statistics in Brief, is remedial coursework enrollment. Consistent with earlier NCES publications, this brief defines remedial courses as courses for students lacking skills necessary to perform college-level work at the degree of rigor required by the institution (Parsad and Lewis 2003). At the start of their college careers, students who are not sufficiently prepared to complete entry-level courses are often encouraged or required to take developmental or remedial courses. Results from previous surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that collected data on the percentage of students enrolled in remedial coursework found that 28 percent of first-year students who entered 2- or 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions were enrolled in remedial courses in both 1995 and 2000 (Parsad and Lewis 2003). Given evidence of stable remediation rates during the late-1990s, and the current education reform context that seeks to reduce remediation in college, this Statistics in Brief provides descriptive data on the frequency of self-reported enrollment in remedial courses within and across three time points, 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08. The purpose of the brief is to update the available evidence regarding self-reported student remediation and provide descriptive information as context for policy discussions. This Statistics in Brief uses data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) to examine the incidence of remedial coursetaking between the 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08 academic years. Specifically, this brief examines the percentages of first-year undergraduate students enrolled in institutions of higher education (IHE) who reported taking remedial courses in the 1999-2000, 2003-04, and 2007-08 academic years, by institutional characteristics, such as institutional control (public or private), level (2-year or 4-year) and selectivity. For students who attended public institutions, the brief examines enrollment characteristics, such as undergraduate degree program and field of study; and student characteristics, such as sex, race/ethnicity, age, parents' education, and dependency status. NPSAS is a nationally representative survey of all postsecondary students enrolled in Title IV institutions. Standard Error Tables are appended. (Contains 6 tables, 1 figure and 10 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 (391K)