Showing posts with label college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college. Show all posts

Saturday, June 1, 2019

RISING TO THE CHALLENGE: MT. EVEREST AND COLLEGE

It’s not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves. ~ Sir Edmund Hillary 

There’s a straightforward relationship that explains both the horrendous end of Mt. Everest’s spring climbing season this year and the added challenges increasing numbers of students face of graduating from US colleges. These two trends in one sense display a victory for the marketing of these arduous “projects” to a larger, broader public that’s not completely ready for them. In cold economic terms, it’s consumer demand exceeding available supply. But at what cost? Deaths and drop-outs.
The recent deaths on Mt. Everest have once again peaked the media’s interest. The adventure media while berating the agonies of defeats and deaths fawns over the thrills of the quest each and every season.
Why has this season seen 11 climbers die on the mountain, the most since 2015 when at least 22 people perished due to avalanches? There were 5 deaths last year. For a change, it wasn’t this year’s weather or earthquakes or avalanches. It was because climbing Everest has for some time been commercialized and sold as something folks beyond just the hardest of hard-core, capable alpinists can successfully attempt. Nepal’s tourism ministry, seeking hard currency, issued permits to summit Mt. Everest to a record 381 climbers this season, at a cost of about $11,000 each. Beyond the permit, the trip itself can cost $45,000 or more.
That’s a very long way from Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay’s initial ascent 65 years ago. According to veteran mountaineers, this year there have been too many inexperienced climbers who have bought their way into attempting Mt. Everest who haven’t been adequately trained or supported. Dreadful results have precipitated. These results were created in no small part because of the sheer numbers of climbers attempting to simultaneously reach the peak, shown in the picture below. This is what it looked like last week when too many people (probably over 200) were waiting to capture their moment of glory on the narrow, cold (-13oF) confines of the summit at 29,029ft. Fascinatingly, Mt. Everest continues to grow about 0.25” each year. With the extended wait, often two hours or more, unprepared climbers can run out of oxygen among other life-threatening challenges.

The summit jam at the top of Mt. Everest, May 2019.
Source: Getty Images via The Washington Post.

Meanwhile back in the lowlands, more than 16.8 million undergraduates traversed the academic slopes at colleges and universities last fall, representing a 27.8% increase since 2000. The number of US adults that have a B.A. or higher degree has increased 36.7% since 2000.
For decades, post-high school academic education has been proclaimed by many authorities, including educators and politicians, as the very best way of ensuring career success. Students and their families have listened and acted on this advice. In 2018, 35% of US adults have received a B.A. or higher degree. This proportion of college-educated adults has never been higher, as shown in the chart below. College enrollment has been increasing for young adults for over a century. This is a very good thing because a more educated, skilled workforce is more productive and more engaged. This achievement reflects not just individual successes but collective ones that have benefited society.

Percent of US adults with a B.A. or higher degree
 Source: NCES.ed.gov 

This chart illustrates that the growth of adults having at least a B.A. degree follows a logistic curve during the nearly 90 years shown. From the 1970s through 2000, the percentage of adults with college degrees rapidly increased; it more than doubled. After 2010 the incremental increases in adults with a college degree are smaller than before. This is expected to continue. The total number of undergraduates enrolled in US colleges peaked in 2010, at 18.1 million.
There are certainly sound reasons why growing numbers of young adults have elected to follow the college pathway to hopeful success. One reason, beyond possessing increased knowledge, is being able to receive higher compensation at work. In his superb Kenyon College commencement speech, This is Water, David Foster Wallace offers a much different and appropriately broader perspective when he stated, "It is about the real value of a real education has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over: ‘This is water.’”
The median annual earnings of young adults with a B.A. were $50,000 in 2016. The college income premium is often used as a justification for those of us who are fiscally-focused. It offers a rationale for devoting the considerable time, effort and expense required to receive a B.A. Several studies that have examined the size of the college income premium have found that it has ranged from about 70% to 100% more than income earned by people without a college degree. This premium has neither grown nor fallen very much over the last two decades; it’s plateaued. Other studies imply that the premium may have started to decline for specific cohorts of college students.
What has grown are college tuition and fees, which have greatly climbed for two reasons. First, states have provided a much smaller proportion of public university budgets; and second, the demand for an A.A. or B.A. degree has increased significantly. It’s been a sellers’ market for a long time, especially at “selective” schools. Since 1978, college tuition and fees have increased more than three times as fast as consumer goods and services’ prices have. Student debt has consequently risen; 69% of all college students have taken out at least one loan; the average loan owed is $29,800; the median monthly payment is $222.
I don’t think this necessarily comports as a general, capital “C” Crisis that’s often mentioned in the media. Student debt has increased because a lot more students have chosen to go to college. It’s principally demand-driven. Student debt that enables earning a college degree eventually provides added value to each and every student who graduates, as mentioned above. But defaults on student debt are the highest by a large margin of any type of private debt, especially for students who don’t graduate.
Entering and thriving in college, like climbing Everest, is not for the unprepared. As more and more students are going college, more have found it difficult to summit the academic mountain facing them. According to one report, anywhere from 40% to 60% of first-year college students now require remediation in English and/or math. These remedial courses cost students crucial money – about $1.3 billion each year. Also, these courses don’t count towards graduation requirements. On-time graduation rates of students who take remedial classes are consistently less than 10%. Basically, remedial education in college represents a deep crevasse into which all too many students are unlikely to emerge. The “who’s responsible for this” fingers are pointed in many directions regarding why this increased level of needed remediation has occurred and, of course, who should pay for it. More remediation is needed.
Today’s first-year entrants into college are more broadly representative of all our young adults, rather than a much narrower slice of them in decades gone by. This breadth is requiring more support services on the part of colleges and secondary schools, and more determination on the part of these students. Students who have the required determination and available resources graduate. But a lot don’t.
The travails of our ever-increasing number of college attendees have also risen, with only 40.7% graduating within four years across all US post-secondary educational institutions. For-profit schools’ graduation rate is contemptibly much lower, only 17.6% which is less than one-third the rate for non-profits.
Interestingly, there were several for-profit colleges named after the Earth’s highest peak. Unfortunately, none of the Everest Colleges ever reached high-altitude academics. Their owner/operator, Corinthian Colleges Inc., was successfully sued by the State of California in 2016 for defrauding their students. Everest College graduates have legitimately expressed concerns that their Everest degrees are effectively worthless. If colleges like Everest have been offering worthless degrees, perhaps they should be removed from the education business.
Higher education in the US now is far different than it was even 20 years ago, let alone in the more distant past. When I graduated from college, just after the Iron Age, having a B.A. was quite extraordinary, just one-in-ten adults received a B.A. or higher degree.
Neither the industrial-education complex, nor politicians, nor young people will allow a return to even the 2000s, when just one in four young adults graduated with a B.A. Now it’s one-in-three, which sounds like a small change, but it most assuredly isn’t. Getting a college degree has never been so culturally and socially hard-wired into our successful futures. Some folks even believe it’s a right, rather than an option. Go figure. For now and forever-more, returning to the recent past isn’t going to happen in terms of college access, and shouldn’t. And there are consequences when college degree holders become ever more widespread and less extraordinary.
Student loans have always been subsidized, reflecting the positive externalities associated with being a college graduate. Recently, several Dem presidential hopefuls have proposed increasing these subsidies in several ways. I do not think we should adopt policies like free public university that consequently will incent even more high-school grads and others to enter colleges. Visually think of such programs’ aftereffects as similar to the above picture of the overly long queue of cramped climbers waiting for the momentary grandeur of summiting Mt. Everest. Instead, multitudes of additional college students will be waiting and waiting not only to get into already-filled classes, but also to find a place to sleep and eat. Will these additional collegians, who would not have otherwise applied if it weren’t “free,” be adequately prepared academically? I have my doubts.
Policies like those Bernie and Elizabeth have been pushing for “tuition-free” and “debt-free” college are a doomed fantasy without also dramatically increasing public colleges/universities’ federal funding for expanded faculty, facilities and especially for remediative programs. If such free college programs were to see the light of day, listen for the anguished cries of progressives who whine that such policies will end up subsidizing un-poor people, mon dieu how inequitable! Such expensive, expansionary programs are likely to devalue the worth of attaining a college degree and increase drop-out rates. An A.A. or B.A. would become less exceptional and more normal. More eateries, and other businesses, would begin requiring wait-person jobs to have a post-high school degree. At best, smaller wage premiums would be willingly paid for such normality, just like when high-school degrees became ordinary starting in the 1970s; 55.2% of US adults had a high-school diploma in 1970. So, regarding “free college;” be careful what you wish for.
As Sir Edmund stated, it’s not a real adventure when you have to pay for it. Nevertheless, here’s to prepared adventuring in high places and higher education.






Sunday, September 9, 2018

ANOTHER COLLEGE APPLICATION ESSAY. One More Time with Feeling

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. ~ William Butler Yates

Tis the season. Erstwhile high school seniors are now working on their applications to enter college next fall. This has been an increasingly popular fall pastime for young people, as I’ve noted before. This fall 2.9 million freshmen are starting their college journeys. The National Center for Educational Statistics expects 19.9 million students to attend the 4,627 American colleges and universities this year. That represents a whole lot of essays written in the past 4+ years.
The percentage of US adults that have at least a baccalaureate degree has never been higher at 34.2% in 2017 (latest year available). Interestingly, this share of adults who have attained at least a B.A. degree is virtually identical with the share of US adults who graduated from high school 67 years ago. What a difference a few generations make.
In the spirit of seniors I interact with at Berkeley High School, I’ve decided to write now another college application essay, to my hypothetical first-choice college, “All About University" (All About U). It’s been 56 years since my last essay. I’ll give it one more try with great feeling. Hopefully by writing this essay I can empathize with this year’s seniors, as well as summarize “my story” in a measly 650 words, which is the word limit for an essay submitted as part of the Common Application. The Common App website states, “Every applicant has a unique story. The essay helps bring that story to life.”
There is no lack of online or offline assistance available for those of us who face writing this essay. Over the years, it has become a very large cottage industry. When I Googled “How to write a college application essay” I received 326 million responses in 0.48 seconds, including one that cited the Modern Language Association’s recommendation that the essay be written in double-spaced 12-point Times New Roman. I’m neglecting these two formatting suggestions at my own peril. So here’s my unique story; I’m sticking to it. 
My Essay.  Plato’s Socratic paradox states, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” My educational life, from kindergartening through garnering a Ph.D., has been devoted to reducing the “know nothing” portion of this paradox. This essay reflects my interest in further diminishing my know nothingness via added education at All About U.
I characterize my formal education beginning, with a tip of my hat to Plato, as knowing nothing about virtually everything and ending up knowing virtually everything about next to nothing (in this case, my dissertation topic). This essay is the story of what I’ve learned and gained insight about. The greater domain of knowledge remaining for me to acquire remains. Attending All About U will offer succor in my quest.
My life has been filled with luck and good fortune because I’ve done the right kind of work that I was passionate about and because of perpetual support of family and friends. Although I wasn’t an all-star academic student throughout most of my K-12 and college career, my optimista nature, social competence, talent, inquisitiveness and ability to envision pathways to achievement were rewarded. A bit of luck was involved in selecting a then-obscure industry – electric utilities – as the focus of my dissertation research. I became one of a small number of energy experts at a fortuitous moment before the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo dramatically changed the US’s economic and energy perspective. Energy was no longer a background topic, it was very front and center as drivers waited for hours to fill their tuna boat-sized cars with gasoline. That crisis suddenly amplified my worth and helped guide my professional career in energy efficiency studies for decades to come.
After retiring from energy consulting in Berkeley, I found another career passion. I decided to “pay it forward” and volunteer my time assisting students at Berkeley High School. Specifically, 12 years ago I became involved with tutoring students who enrolled in two of the school’s college-level economics classes. I’ve helped them to start thinking like economists. Useful economic analysis requires careful, systematic, evidence-based thinking.
It’s been 50 years since I first taught introductory econ as a grad student teaching assistant; my how time has flown. I’m pleased to now be an elder TA, in a sense returning to where I began.
It’s a substantive understatement to say much has changed during the past five decades in our economy. Nevertheless, some overly-aged, now irrelevant concepts – like the Phillips Curve – still reside in these courses’ syllabuses. Despite this I’ve greatly enjoyed working with the teachers and their students. I estimate about 2,500 students have taken these courses since I began. I’m reassured that my efforts have made a difference for a number of them. I’ve also learned more about myself, economics and teaching.
I’ve learned the value of patience, perspective and priorities. It’s crucial to know the details of a particular issue, but also to comprehend the broader perspective and context about how it’s related to the rest of the economy and society. I’ve learned that the most important “law” of economics isn’t the Law of Supply or Demand; no, it’s the inescapable Law of Unintended Consequences.
Another insight I gained in my educational and professional career was to always take advantage of an Open Door policy, referring to the time teachers, supervisors and clients make available for interacting with them. Despite their fears of entering a teacher’s or supervisor’s office/workspace, undergraduates will not be embarrassed by posing questions. In fact, entering their office will directly benefit you because it demonstrates your interest in learning and doing well and positively distinguishes you from many of your colleagues. Just do it.
My education and career have allowed me to travel extensively, meeting fascinating people and seeing fascinating places. I look forward to continuing to expand my knowledge – and reducing my know nothingness – of people and places. Entering All About U will facilitate my journey.  [650 words, oh yeah!]




Monday, June 26, 2017

MORTARBOARDED BY THE COLLEGE EDUCATION MARKET

We should be brave with our talents. ~ Caroline North 


I have thought more about the market for college education now that graduation season has ended and the 2.92 million new college graduates have celebrated and tossed their mortarboards into the air this spring. We spend lot of money on college education. The latest data show that postsecondary institutions’ total expenses for the 2013-14 academic year were approximately $517 billion; public institutions accounted for 63% to the total, private nonprofit institutions spent 33%, and private for-profit institutions account for 4% of the total. This 3-year old total expenditure is within 10% what the federal and state governments now pay for Medicaid.
I’ll start by returning to basic microeconomics and examine the market for college (aka, tertiary) education. I’ve used the term “college” here to include every type of post high-school (post-secondary) education, including elite and non-elite 4-year private institutions (e.g., Harvard, Stanford, Cal Tech, Denison, Willamette and Shimer College in Chicago that has just 97 students), elite and non-elite 4-year public institutions (e.g., UC/Berkeley, Univ. of Arizona, Western Washington Univ., West Chester Univ.) and public and private 2-year institutions (e.g., Berkeley City College and for-profit schools like DeVry University). Broadly speaking, these are the 3 distinct types of colleges that comprise the “supply” side of the college market. California has the largest number of colleges of any state, 1,246, and is home to colleges in each of these 3 supply tiers. There are 3 major stakeholders in the market for college education; (1) the college suppliers of this education, (2) the students who “demand” education services of the colleges, and (3) federal and state governments who finance large parts of both the suppliers and demanders.
The demand side of the market is the students who apply to, enroll in, attend and hopefully graduate from the over 4,700 higher-education institutions (aka, colleges) in the US. The latest information indicates the total student enrollment in US colleges is more than 20.5 million in 2016. College enrollment has been steadily increasing since post WWII, when the federal government enacted the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (aka, the G.I. Bill). In effect, the G.I. Bill helped create the 20th century version of the “American Dream” and augmented it to include not just a house but a college education. In 2015 the college graduation rate was 59% at public institutions, 66% at private nonprofit institutions, and a depressing 23% at private for-profit institutions (about one-third the rate for private nonprofit institutions).
From 1950 to 2016 student enrollment in US colleges has increased about 740% and represents an unqualified, first order achievement that has benefited not only the millions of college graduates themselves but our nation as a whole. These undeniable collective benefits are why Econ 101 teachers like me use college education as a prime example of an economic activity that provides positive externalities. This laudable, long-term increase in people having a B.A. or more is illustrated in the following chart.
Percent of US adults with a B.A. or higher degree
Source: NCES.ed.gov. Adults are defined as people between 25 and 64 years.
This market for college education is now and has been out of balance; we are nowhere near “market equilibrium” in any white-board classroom sense. Some of this imbalance is the result of public policies, as well as policies created by the colleges and finally consumer behavior. The economics of this market are, to no one’s surprise, largely demand driven.
I now examine how college supply and demand have changed during the past decades. Total enrollment in “Higher Education Institutions” (HEIs) is a National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) term referring to what ordinary folks call colleges and universities) grew by 76.1% from 1980 through 2013. Currently, 2013 is the last year of info for HEIs – but not enrollment in HEIs – those data go through 2015.
The number of HEIs from 1980 through 2013 grew 49.9%. HEIs include both 2-year and 4-year schools. Using 2000 instead of 1980 as the “base” year for growth through 2013, HEIs grew 13.0%, enrollment grew 33.1%. The number of HEIs in 2013 was 4,724 about 2/3rds of which are 4-year schools; number of enrolled students in 2013 was 20,376,000.
Interestingly, these NCES data indicate the growth in the number of 4-year HEIs was about twice as fast as that of 2-year schools, 41.9% vs 19.5%. My expectation, based on information presented in the media, was that 2-year schools’ growth would be stronger. From 1980 through 2000 the growth in the number of 2-year colleges exceeded that of 4-year colleges. But starting after the Obama administration took office, the federal Education Dept. launched a fairly extensive “review” of degree-granting schools (especially private for-profits) to better regulate them and improve their woeful graduation rates. As a consequence of these reviews and regulations, the number of 2-year HEIs declined by 2.1% between 2000 and 2013. Nevertheless, some 2 million students are enrolled in for-profit colleges, up from 400,000 in 2000. The Trump administration is now weakening and removing such regulations. Remember Trump University, it may be back in business? In contrast, 4-year HEIs grew by over 22% since 2000.
What’s happened to college faculty salaries during this time of tremendous enrollment growth and increases in the number of HEIs and tuition? Not much. The table below shows average real salaries for full-time faculty between 1971 and 2010. Faculty salaries have increased, but only nominally and far less than one would expect given the market growth. Look at the drop in real salaries that happened after 1971.
College Faculty Salaries, 1971-2010
Average Salary
Average Salary
Year
All Faculty
Professor
(2008-09$)
(2008-09$)
1971
$68,677
$97,035
1976
$64,479
$87,667
1980
$59,029
$78,495
1990
$67,847
$89,277
2000
$70,865    (3.2% fr ’71)
$94,350            (-2.8% fr ’71)
2010
$73,910     (4.3% fr ’00)
$102,691 (8.8% fr ’00)
Source: NCES. Figures in parentheses indicate percent change from indicated year.
From these data, it took the all faculty average salary until 1997 (not shown in the table) to get back to what it was in 1971. For professors the 1971 average salary level didn’t return until 2002. There’s no pre-1971 data so I can’t tell if this year was atypical for hiring faculty; that newly-minted PhDs were in abnormally short supply pushing salaries up, but average faculty salaries dropped after 1971 through the ‘70s, ‘80s and much of the ‘90s as shown in the table, despite large increases in enrollment. Also note the percent change in the 2000 and 2010 salaries. The average professor’s real salary actually shrank by 2.8% from 1971 to 2000, and grew a very modest 8.8% over the ten years ending 2010.
The 2015 average salary for professors from another source is listed as $114,134. This source shows the minimum/maximum salary spread for professors in 2015 from $55k to $207k. NCES data show that the full-time instructional staff at HEIs has increased over 20% since 2015 to over 620,000 people.
For the San Francisco Bay Area, Glassdoor.com states the average professor salary is $155,077, with a spread from $94k to $244k. The 2015 median “postsecondary teacher” salary is listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as $72,470. The BLS says they expect a humble 13% projected 10-yr growth in this college faculty salary level.
These data provide solid evidence that despite significant growth in the demand for college attendance and growth in the number of HEIs, college faculty real salary growth has been bleak. Faculty salaries’ increases do not embody the continued strong demand for the services faculty members have provided. One trend that has contributed to this low growth of faculty salaries is the increased use of non-tenure track, adjunct instructors. Or perhaps the majority of that tuition and fee revenue growth has gone to administrators, as anecdotal data seems to indicate. This information suggests that, on average, college faculty members have picked the short straws in the college market for quite some time.
College-going has deepened and broadened in the US. This is a very good thing from several perspectives. The demand for college education has increased significantly, and will continue to. The NCES now projects that awarded B.A.’s will increase 14% between 2010 and 2021, up from the 7.1% previously forecast. But the growth of supply (or capacity) of colleges to accommodate ever-more students has increased but lagged demand’s huge growth.
The bottom line regarding our college education market is that the demand for college enrollment has grown almost 3 times as fast as the number (supply) of HEIs has (33.1% vs 13%). It’s mostly a sellers’ market. 
What happens in a market when the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied? Prices rise, as indeed they have in the college market. Tuition and fees have followed an upward, ballistic trajectory for quite a while. In the 15 years from 2002 to 2017 college tuition, fees and room & board have increased 40.4% in real terms (after accounting for inflation) for private, nonprofit 4-year colleges and 63.9% for public 4-year colleges. This is principally demand-pull tuition inflation that colleges are happy to oblige.
Tuition and other costs have risen for colleges, especially public institutions, because federal tertiary education funding has steadily declined since 1965; state funding of colleges has contracted since the late 1970s. Tuition revenues surpassed federally-supplied funds after 1965. In 2011 tuition revenues surpassed state funding for the UC system in 2011. Between 1996 and 2016 both in-state and out-of-state tuition at UC/Berkeley practically tripled. According to the College Board, national yearly costs for private, nonprofit 4-year colleges currently average $45,370; for public 4-year colleges it’s $20,080.
Although colleges have been fiscally pressed to raise tuition and fees since other funding sources have declined, how can they keep raising tuition and fees so dramatically without suffering a loss of customers (aka, students)? They can because the demand for college education is very price inelastic (insensitive). The economic assessments I found of the price elasticity of demand[1] (PED) for college education range from -0.44 to -0.85. In non-econ speak this means that students don’t really reduce their demand for education much when tuition and fees increase, despite their protests. Enrollment demand decreases much less than tuition price increases. Why? Because there aren’t any real substitutes, other than going to another college or a lower-tier one that has lower tuition.
Colleges don’t really compete on price; they compete on reputation and expected benefits. This lack of substitutes differentiates college education from a host of other retail services and products, and strengthens the colleges’ ability to raise tuition, especially when federally-subsidized college loan funds have increased. Exactly how colleges determine what their tuition and fees will be is far beyond the scope of this analysis. Adam Davidson wrote an interesting, insightful article several years ago that examines the tuition-setting process and expressed his belief that the top elite private colleges are probably underpriced.
Students and their families know that the only thing more expensive than a college education is not getting a college education. As one woman put it that is supporting her 2 sons with a part-time manufacturing job, “If you don’t have a college degree, your job choices are fast food or factory.” So students begrudgingly take out larger loans and/or apply for greater financial support with all fingers crossed. Given such numerically low price elasticities, increases in tuition and fees provide increased revenue for colleges. The price elasticity of demand is likely even lower for elite public and private colleges, as ever-lower acceptance rates demonstrate.
College students and their professors have been mortarboarded by this market. Students are always paying more, faculty members aren’t gaining much financial benefit and educational institutions rule the academic roost.
Given these substantial increases in college tuition and fees and the rising demand for tertiary education it’s easy to see why promises by liberal politicians to make college “free” have such wide appeal among young people. The “free” part of no-tuition public college is a chimera, especially for taxpayers. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 free-tuition program for all could have cost well over the $75 billion per year that he suggested. He hoped it would be paid by a new financial transactions tax. This April, he renewed his utopian legislative efforts to create free public-college education in America. Good luck with that, Bernie.
Last week’s surprisingly strong results for the British Labour Party were in no small part due to Millennials voting for Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to make British colleges tuition-free. Unlike America where only 17% of Bernie’s young followers actually cast a vote for their free-tuition man in the presidential primaries, 57% of British young adults voted for Mr. Corbyn last week and rejuvenated the Labour Party.
Will free tuition rule? As a taxpayer, I hope not. A good friend of mine says that one of the most expensive services that government can provide is “free” stuff. Expanding Stafford loans and Pell grants is a much better policy option, though far less poltically entrancing.
Increased college graduation has greatly benefited individual graduates and our nation. Within the market for college education the process of getting such an education has become more complex, more time-consuming and more costly. The suppliers of this education – colleges and universities – excluding their faculty, seem to have benefited the most.





[1] Formally, the PED is the ratio of the percent change in quantity demanded of the product/service (here college education) to the percent change in price of the product/service (here tuition), ceteris paribus. The PED is usually negative because for normal (non Veblen or Giffin) goods Qd  is inversely related to P. PED = dQd/Qd  / dP/P. If PED<1, it’s called inelastic and the percent reduction in Qd will be less than the percentage increase in price. 



Wednesday, May 24, 2017

POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCES: Five decades after college

Cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education. ~ Mark Twain


How could have it been this long, 50 years since I graduated from college? My how time really flies.
Now that I’ve reached my Baccalaureate’s golden anniversary I decided to explore how our economy and its college graduates can be compared during the 50 years since June 1967 when I received my B.A. degree in economics. I assess the current economic circumstances that the graduating Class of 2017 is about to inhabit with that of my graduation. I also have examined the economic landscape in June 1971, when I (finally) entered the full-time work force having completed my Ph.D. course work and much of my dissertation.
Here’s a minor insight I gained from this inquiry. In looking back at my college transcript – no, it wasn’t on papyrus – I re-discovered that my college senior thesis and five years later my doctoral dissertation both examined aspects of the economics of technological innovation, a topic that’s still of personal interest.
Can there be a golden reunion of sorts between my Class of 1967 and the Class of 2017? Let’s see…
First, here is some basic information regarding the impressive accomplishment of increasing our educational attainment. Chart 1 below shows the ever-growing percentage of adults who have received a B.A. or more during the past century. In 2015, the latest year available, 32.5% of adults had a 4-year college degree or more and 88.4% had a high-school diploma. In 1967, 10.5% of us had received a B.A. or higher degree. In 50 years we’ve tripled the share of adults who have college degrees.  
Chart 1: Percent of US adults who have a B.A. or higher degree
Source: NCES.ed.gov. Adults are defined as people between 25 and 64 years.
 An interesting perspective on the current level of degree-attainment is the percentage equivalence between the high-school graduation share in 1950 and college graduation in 2015. The percent of adults who have at least a B.A. in 2015 (32.5%) is in a way comparable (and up an educational notch) to 1950, when 34.3% of adults had a high-school diploma. In 1950, the bulge of American GIs who benefited from the federal government paying for much of their post-high school education had started completing college. People with a B.A. or more in 1950 represented 6.2% of adults. In 1971, about 11% of adults had a B.A. or more.
Table 1 shows the breakdown of college graduates by gender for the three years I have focused on.
 Table 1: Adults who have completed four years of college or more, by gender

Year
Men / Women with a B.A. or more(% of US population)
1967
12.8% / 7.6%
1971
14.6% / 8.5%
2015
32.3% /32.7%
As shown, in 1967 almost twice as many men received degrees as women. Between 1967 and 2015 the percentage of adults with a B.A. or post-graduate degree more than doubled for men and more than quadrupled for women, a notable feat for improving the nation’s human capital and enormously benefiting America. Each year, women now account for more college degree-holders than men.
Table 2 summarizes macroeconomic conditions in the US for these three graduation years. 
Table 2: US Economy in three graduation years


Year

Real GDP
(billions 2009$)

Real GDP
Growth

Employment* (millions)

Unemployment Rate**

Inflation
Rate (CPI)+

US Average
Annual Earnings++
1967
$4,355.2
0.3%
65.89
4.0% ↑
2.8%
$5,907 ($43,246)
1971
$4,877.6
2.3%
71.25
5.6% ↓
4.3%
$7,530 ($44,780)
2017
$16,842.4
0.7%
146.06
4.4% ↓ (2.4%)
1.8%
($45,677)
*All employees: total nonfarm payrolls.  ** ↑ indicates increase in rate from previous month; ↓ indicates decrease from previous month; in parentheses, unemployment for people with a B.A. or higher.  + 2017 inflation based on CPI change from 2015Q4 to 2016Q4.  ++ Average annual real earnings in parentheses (2017$).
Source: BEA, BLS. If available, I used June data for each year. 
You can see that real GDP almost quadrupled from 1967 to 2017 and that that real GDP growth was lowest in 1967, an unimpressive 0.3%. The June 1967 unemployment rate also was the lowest. Even though the 4.0% unemployment rate had increased marginally from the month before, 790,000 more people were added in June 1967 to the employed, nonfarm labor force. Using today’s economic thinking a 4.0% unemployment rate would signal robust full employment with a solid likelihood of inflation around the GDP corner. Yet the annual inflation rate in 1967 was a relatively mild 2.8%. Real GDP growth was far stronger when I entered the full-time labor force in 1971, 2.3%, although the 5.6% unemployment rate was the highest of any of the three years. The 4.3% inflation rate also was the highest of these three years. What wasn’t high during the four year period between 1967 and 1971 was the increase in average annual real earnings that grew less than 1% per year. It increased even less during the 1971-2017 time period. Despite this miniscule income growth, the US was not in a recession during any of these three years.
The Class of 2017 faces an economy that’s expanding, at an all too modest rate (0.7%), with a declining unemployment rate and very modest inflation, 1.8%. The unemployment rate for all people with at least a B.A. is much lower than the overall rate, just 2.4%; although the unemployment rate for young adults (21-24 years) with a college degree was 5.6%. The income of young college graduates has recovered to about $40,000. These economic descriptors sound quite encouraging for the Class of 2017; certainly when compared to seniors who graduated in 2007 and soon thereafter during the lingering Great Recession. This year 21% of the class of 2017 accepted a job before graduation, up from 12% last year and 11% two years ago according to Accenture.
Nevertheless, there are qualifications to this year’s good news based on two factors. First, there are now more young adults with B.A.s seeking jobs than ever before. This steady increase in B.A.-holders first began in earnest in the 1980s, as shown in Chart 1. In 2017, 1.9 million college students are expected to graduate. Having a college degree has become much less exceptional than it was in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. Now, it’s increasingly seen as necessary, not optional, for securing a brighter economic future. This surge in college-educated labor in part has allowed employers to “up-credential” certain entry-level jobs, meaning employers have been able to specify that job applicants require a college degree, where before the job didn’t require a B.A. credential. Of the more than 11 million jobs were created since the last recession, almost 75% of those positions have been filled by people with at least a B.A. degree.
A second factor is persistent, historically-low economic (GDP) growth, shown in Table 2. As I’ve mentioned before, US macroeconomic growth remains rutted well below 3% since 2006. Lower growth produces fewer new jobs for everyone looking to be employed, lower labor-force participation and slackened wage increases.
Beyond up-credentialing, underemployment of recent college graduates has risen and includes 43.5% of college graduates ages 22 to 27 who are working at jobs that don’t even require a college degree. Employment of non-white college graduates remains even more problematic.
With the sizeable number of college grads working in “non-college” jobs, the employment prospects for recent high school graduates have become doubly-difficult. High school graduates’ unemployment climbed to 16.9%, one percent higher than in 2007; their average income is $22,600.
The properly-vaunted college wage premium has been one often-cited motivating factor for increased college attendance during the past decade. According to a recent NBER paper the college wage premium has levelled-off. The wage premium between the average annual income of B.A. holders and of high-school degree holders, remains large (about $27,000 per year), but its growth has dropped significantly since 2010. Between 2010 and 2015 the increase in this premium only grew 0.4%; between 2000 and 2010 it was a much larger 25.2% gain. I expect this wage premium will continue to decay as college attendance rises and low growth persists.
If this trend persists, it will be very challenging for new college graduates because these grads have taken on ever-larger student loans in order to cover their ever-increasing college costs. The most recent information states that 71% of students graduating from four-year colleges have student loan debt. College attendees and graduates now owe $1.4 trillion on their student loans. The average monthly student loan payment is $351 for 20 to 30 year old borrowers. Student loan debt has increased the most rapidly of any debt type (e.g., mortgages, car loans, credit cards) during the past decade. It doubled both as a share of total consumer debt and in dollar amount since 2007. Student loan debt now accounts for 10.6% of all consumer debt. To add fiscal salt to these debt wounds, students’ ability to pay has withered. The average income of B.A.-holders increased a meager $915 from 2010 to 2015, a paltry 0.3% per year.
The president’s more-detailed budget for the next fiscal year was submitted to Congress on May 23. In it he proposes to cut student loan funding and subsidies by $143 billion. That may save some cents, but it does not make sense.
Until more robust economic growth re-appears, the Class of 2017’s economic prospects will be far less buoyant than those of our Class of 1967 were. Despite the president’s pledges for higher growth, it’s unlikely to occur any time soon. His policies don’t support it. Many economists rightly believe his visions of sustained 3+% growth is a fantasy. Greater macroeconomic growth depends on two principal sources, higher productivity and higher work-force participation, neither of which has risen much if at all lately. None of the president’s hazily-stated policies will positively affect productivity or work-force participation.
In many economic respects it was relatively better for us 50 years ago as newly-minted graduates in the Class of 1967. QED, the Summer of Love, complete with embroidered bell-bottoms, and beyond. But it is worth remembering from a broader, life perspective that recent college grads very fortunately haven’t had to worry, as we did, about General Hershey and local Selective Service Boards (which, to this day, still require men to register at age 18) drafting us as young graduates, then donning a uniform and heading into the jungles of Viet Nam. As they fling their mortarboards in the air, the challenges facing the Class of 2017 thankfully have nothing to do with tropical war zones. Here’s to more pomp and less circumstances.