Search

What Americans know, or think they know, about financing a college education was studied in a comprehensive 9-month study that included 16 focus groups with 150 parents in 8 cities and a telephone survey of 2,000 randomly selected adults between the ages of 21 and 70 from all parts of the United States. Taken together, the central findings of this analysis suggest that the public places an incredibly high value on higher education and plans to do whatever it takes to help their children obtain it, or to obtain it themselves, but that they are worried, poorly informed, and not well equipped to make thoughtful choices. Six central conclusions are drawn: (1) the public thinks that higher education is vitally important and a good value for the money; (2) people worry about the price of attending college and thinks the price can be brought down without affecting academic quality; (3) the public has a distorted view of what it costs to attend college; (4) people have no idea why college costs increase; (5) the public does not know how much financial aid is available to help meet college bills, where it comes from, and how to get it; and (6) the public thinks that college leaders are indifferent to their concerns about the price of attending college. An appendix contains the survey findings in chart form. (SLD)

The end of a decade and the start of a new century provide an opportunity to review how higher education has changed and to assess the implications of these developments for the future. This report focuses on six higher education developments from the recent past: (1) the link between postsecondary education and individual well-being grows stronger; (2) new providers and new approaches challenge traditional models; (3) the price of college has grown, as have the ways to pay for it; (4) options to pay for college have expanded, but the system remains incomprehensible; (5) regulatory and legal challenges have increased; and (6) increasing access to higher education for low-income and minority students remains an elusive goal. It is difficult to know where these developments will lead, but there are some key considerations. Public support of higher education will bring greater scrutiny, and concern over access will continue to grow. It is to be expected that technology will reshape higher education and may well redefine it. Middle class concerns about paying for college will not go away. It also seems that the likelihood of increased government regulation cannot be underestimated. The central question facing higher education is whether the community will wait passively for these events or whether it will present a unified and vocal front to policymakers and the media and help shape the future. (SLD)

Trends in the level of borrowing by graduate and professional students, and the capacity of students to repay their education debt are considered. In addition, sources of debt data and implications of this information for national student aid and data collection policy are addressed. Attention is also directed to levels of indebtedness between graduate students in the arts and sciences and students enrolled in professional schools; the levels of indebtedness among fields within the arts and sciences; and the future earnings and debt burden of graduate and professional students. Debt burden refers to the portion of a borrower's future earnings that will be needed to repay educational loans. Five major fields are analyzed: business, law, medicine, arts and science Ph.Ds, and arts and science masters. The data for analyzing student debt came from the Graduate and Professional Student Financial Aid Service, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the Association of American Medical Colleges. Estimates of future earnings by occupational fields were derived from Census Bureau and National Research Council data. It was found that students in medicine and law had the highest estimated debt, while students seeking a masters or Ph.D in the arts and sciences showed lower indebtedness. (SW)

The relationship between college costs and family income is examined, along with the debt burden incurred by students while pursuing a postsecondary education. Attention is directed to an analytical model of discretionary income, the families' current income and college costs and how these have changed over the last decade, and general empirical findings and further research that would improve current modeling efforts and data availability. Discretionary income is defined as the amount of resources that remain for a family or an individual after taxes and basic living expenses are deducted. Findings include the following: the ratio of college costs (at both public and private institutions) to parental discretionary income is slightly lower than it was in 1970; between 1970 and 1979, the increase in family discretionary income far exceeded the increase in college costs; during 1979 and-1981, college costs have grown at a much faster rate than income; college graduates with borrowing and income levels around the median will have little trouble repaying education debts; students who are unemployed, working part-time, or in low-paying jobs may have relatively high burdens in the first few years of repayment. (SW)

Issues of federal-state-institutional relations are moving to the center of attention of policymakers concerned with postsecondary education. One reason for the shift is that the Higher Education Amendments of 1972, which contained a number of important measures bearing on these relations, will be subject to revision and renewal in the current session of Congress. While the states still play an extremely important role and institutions are at the center of the higher education enterprise, federal policies and federal funds are shaping the future of American postsecondary education. Section 1 reviews the historical evolution of the federal state relations. Section 2 summarizes alternative ways for handling postsecondary programs and relationships with institutions, the states, and the federal government. Section 3 presents a proposal for a federal-state-institutional partnership on postsecondary education and summarizes the current national concerns-that place the federal government in a preeminent position with respect to education. Section 4 discusses state and institutional administrative and fiscal capabilities. Section 5 notes on-going research relevant to the subject of the paper, and a bibliography and list of persons interviewed are appended. (Author/PG)

The paper examines major sources of legislative authorization for career education and raises some policy issues arising from that legislation. Selected examples of career education legislation include: (1) Vocational Education Act of 1963 (Research and Training in Vocational Education, Exemplary Programs and Projects, Cooperative Vocational Education Programs); (2) Title X, Part B, Education Amendments of 1972; (3) Education Amendments of 1974; and (4) Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973. Policy issues relate to: (1) the Potential effect of career education concepts in a variety of legislative sources; (2) the effect of legislative fragmentation on Federal/State administrative effectiveness; (3) the desirability of a more specific legislative definition of career education; (4) how legislation can eliminate distinctions between vocational/academic education at the State/local level; (5) how legislation can incorporate components of career awareness, career orientation, job preparation, counseling, and job career awareness, career orientation, job preparation, guidance, counseling, and job placement; (6) how legislation can encourage better articulation among elementary/secondary/postsecondary career education; (7) effective implementation of career education. A summary of programs most heavily used in funding career education projects is appended. (EA)

The report identifies key administrative issues at the Federal/State/local level which need to be addressed before new Federal career education legislation can be Proposed. The paper is divided into two parts: (1) issues on the Federal level that will be important to policymakers, administrators, and educators; and (2) important issues that must be resolved at the State and local level. The first section discusses the categorical/leadership role of the Federal government in implementing career education programs, structural issues of the Office of Career Education, program delivery (preliminary considerations and policy recommendations), and Federal funding arrangements (categorical vs. block grants, formula vs. project grants, demonstration and exemplary projects, and set-asides). The second section covers alternative State roles in administration, the need for establishing a State career education agency and a statewide director of career education, the necessity for State planning and evaluation activities, issues of eligibility and distribution of funds, and leadership at the local level. A bibliography is included. (EA)

The examination of administrative and political issues in career education entitlement (voucher) plans opens with a discussion of various rationales and models for entitlement programs. A discussion of existing and proposed entitlement schemes covers the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program (BEOG), the educational benefits provided under the G. I. Bill, the Tuition Assistance Plan (TAP) of New York State, and entitlements proposed by Norman Kurland, Herbert Striner, and Charles Benson and Harold Hodgkinson. The discussion of administrative issues covers: general administrative concerns; a new entitlement agency; participant, institution, and program eligibility; student protection; information; advice and counseling; special issues related to participant support services; employed participants' needs; participant placement; and entitlement evaluation. The discussion of political issues assesses the likely reactions of the public in general, students, professionals in postsecondary education (not institutional spokesmen), institutional spokesmen, educational associations, other leading lobbying groups, the States, and the Congress. A discussion of next steps offers two proposals: one for experimenting with a new program, the other for building on existing entitlements. Four appendixes (a bibliography, administrative and political issues in career education voucher and entitlement plans, and an experimental entitlement scheme for adults to aid career related education) comprise 25 pages. (JR)

Assessing the Reagan Administration's first 3 years in office, this paper evaluates the administration's inability to enact its education agenda, which included reductions of federal regulations, cuts in education spending, tuition tax credits, prayer in the public schools, and abolishing the Department of Education. The consolidation of programs into a single Block Grant called Chapter II and the consolidation of Title I programs in Chapter I eliminated many of the strings that governed state and local use of federal funds. Ironically, reduction of regulatory requirements has moved the government closer to federal support for education. Another legislative change reduced student eligibility under the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL). The administration has successfully reduced federal education spending. Between 1980-84 educational appropriations (when adjusted for inflation) fell by 14.5 percent over all categories. Reforming education regulations proved difficult, and little has been accomplished. Except for the Chapter I program, consolidation has been unsuccessful. Tuition tax credits were rejected by the Senate. Plans to restructure financial aid were never seriously considered, and the Department of Education remains in existence. Overall, education policy under President Reagan has changed very little, and the federal role in education looks very much as it did under the past four administrations. (Author/MD)

This book presents a brief description and analysis of the activity of State governments in making educational policy during the past two years. The following three trends are cited as important in the States' increased role: (1) increased State spending on education relative to Federal and local spending; (2) court ordered school finance reform which has led to equalization of spending between districts; and (3) State legislative interest due to the increased spending and a realization of the importance of education to economic growth and social progress. Following an introduction, section two of the book reviews the context for State reforms and discusses the improved professionalism of State governments, the States' interest in educational quality, and the growing perception that high quality education is necessary to ensure economic competitiveness. The third section briefly reviews the States' recent efforts to improve the quality of education, describing the range of new initiatives and summarizing several leading examples of major reforms. The topics covered include teachers, the academic experience, financial support, education organization and structure, and Federal initiatives. The fourth section examines a series of long- and short-range concerns that will have a major impact on the ultimate success or failure of the State efforts to improve the schools, and a final section provides some concluding observations. (CG)

The Republican proposal to cut the federal student loan program is examined, and some of the other challenges and changes likely to be faced by higher education due to Republican politics are outlined, including appropriations for discretionary programs, welfare and immigration reform, social and economic policy issues affecting the middle class, affirmative action, and regulation of information technology. (MSE)

The public is concerned about rising tuition, yet high-profile news stories tell only part of this complex story. Although governing boards and presidents must pursue strategies to keep their institutions affordable, they must also inform their constituents of those strategies and explain better the actual, rather than perceived, cost of attending their institution. (MSE)

Given the enormous public and private investment required to produce physicians and scientists, higher education can not dismiss reports that it produces too many MDs and PhDs. Universities can help by assuring students have timely information about employment prospects. Further research is needed on recent graduates' career paths, foreign medical students and residents, and nonacademic employment of PhDs. (MSE)

The report attempts to analyze the political feasibility of career education currently through analysis of existing legislation and consultation with experts and key policy officials. The most significant Federal legislation for career education has been Title X of the Education Amendments of 1972 providing State grants for the development of occupational education programs and Title IV of the Education Amendments of 1974, Special Project Act. Any further salable career education legislation should: be endorsed by the National advisory Council on Career Education, be acceptable to major interest groups, utilize the results generated by the National Institute of Education's career education research, offer assurances of State/local education agency resource support, and include planning and evaluation requirements. The authors recommend that: (1) legislation be put forward in stages; (2) potential programs be aimed at a "gearing-up" approach to train career education specialists and infuse career education objectives into the educational mainstream; and (3) additional efforts be directed toward constructing a more concrete definition, more precise program objectives, and evaluation criteria. A list of existing career education related programs and a bibliography are appended. (EA)

Congress is considering major changes in federal student aid programs that, if approved, would result in the largest increase in the cost of college in the nation's history. Colleges and universities must now consider how reduced federal student aid would affect their enrollment, and make federal policymakers understand the potential impact of these cuts. (MSE)

Factors contributing to the growing federal regulation of United States colleges and universities are explained, and regulation's impact in the areas of student aid, race relations, scientific research, environmental protection, and age discrimination are discussed. It is argued that a balance between institutional autonomy and accountability must be found. (MSE)

In response to real and perceived problems in higher education, the federal government has increased regulation on campus. Even greater changes, some that will affect the teaching function of colleges and universities, notably the state review and accreditation provisions of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, are already in the works. (MSE)