Your search found 3563 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:
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:
Higher Education; Educational Finance; Income; Public Policy; Enrollment Trends; Tax Allocation; Tax Effort; Tuition; Trend Analysis; Educational Trends; Predictor Variables; Educational Resources; Statistical Data; State Aid; Resource Allocation; Expenditure per Student; Financial Support; School Support; State Surveys; Comparative Analysis; Interstate Programs; Tables (Data); School Taxes; School Funds; Local Government; State Government; Student Financial Aid; Costs; Operating Expenses; Public Colleges; Medical Schools; Rural Extension; Economic Climate; Educational Policy

Abstract:
The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to such broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides information to help inform such decisions. The report includes: (1) An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education; (2) An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in the report; (3) A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and non-tax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support; (4) An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue, in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support; (5) Interstate Comparisons--Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time; and (6) Indicators of Relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons. The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recent fiscal year. Appended are: (1) Grapevine Media Tables; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) State Data Providers; and (4) SSDB Collection Instructions. (Contains 12 figures, 13 tables, and 13 footnotes.) [For "State Higher Education Finance FY 2011," see ED530332.] 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 (15644K)

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; College Transfer Students; Student Mobility; Articulation (Education); Postsecondary Education; Public Colleges; Student Surveys; Transitional Programs; Participant Satisfaction; Attribution Theory; Student Attitudes; Institutional Characteristics; Student Characteristics; Student Educational Objectives; Academic Persistence; Transfer Rates (College)

Abstract:
Over the last several years, there has been a wealth of new data on student mobility in British Columbia's postsecondary system. Quantitative information from the Student Transitions Project (STP) has allowed current and prospective students, the BC Council on Admissions and Transfer (BCCAT), public post-secondary institutions, the Ministry responsible for post-secondary education and the Ministry of Education to get a clearer picture of how students navigate the system, moving among public post-secondary institutions in multiple directions. These administrative data, rich as they are, are unable to answer qualitative questions about why students are moving and how satisfied they are with their institutions and the transfer experience. Data from the Student Transitions Project (STP) were used to identify students who were registered in one or more BC public post-secondary institutions in fall 2011 and were enrolled in a different BC public post-secondary institution during the academic year 2010-2011. Of the 5,932 movers identified as eligible for surveying, 1,623 responded for an overall response rate of 27.4 percent. Respondents to the "Survey of Movers" have provided important insight into their considerations, decisions and experiences as they moved between BC's public post-secondary institutions. As a group, they entered the postsecondary system with varying goals--most commonly either credential completion at their original institution, or transfer to another institution. Most respondents (58 percent) had met their main goals by the time they left their original institution and 85 percent had met their main goal at their subsequent institution by the time they were surveyed. Most students switched institutions not due to dissatisfaction, but because they wanted to pursue a specific program that they could not pursue at the original institution. Appended are: (1) Identifying the Eligible Cohort; and (2) Transfer Expectations and Satisfaction. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For "Survey of Movers. Executive Summary," see ED540020.] 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 (1500K)

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)

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)