October 15, 2024 • 24 mins
Can higher education be the key to economic mobility for low and moderate-income learners in California? In our latest episode, we welcome back Michael Itzkowitz from the HEA Group to delve into this pressing question. Uncover the surprising findings of his latest report with the College Futures Foundation, "California Programs that Pay: Measuring Return on Investment Across Majors and Credentials." Discover how an impressive 88% of college programs in California allow students to recoup their educational expenses within just five years, with a significant portion achieving this feat in only one year. Michael shares invaluable insights into how different majors and credentials can shape the financial future of graduates, providing crucial knowledge for learners navigating the complex landscape of higher education.
The conversation takes a critical look at the role of for-profit institutions and shorter-term certificate programs, particularly in serving underserved communities like women and students of color. We tackle the potential risks these programs pose in perpetuating socioeconomic inequality while highlighting the necessity of transparency in educational investments. As education costs soar and student debt burdens grow, understanding the economic mobility metric becomes vital. We also challenge the notion of prestigious institution brands as the sole path to mobility, emphasizing the diverse opportunities available in California's rich educational landscape. Tune in to empower yourself with the insights needed to make informed choices that could shape your economic destiny.
www.CollegeFutures.org
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz-Oakley.
Welcome back to the RENTPodcast, the podcast that pulls
back the curtain and breaks downthe people, the policies and
the politics of our highereducation system.
In this episode we welcome backMichael Itzkiewicz of the HGA
Group.
As many of you recall, I hadMichael on earlier this year to
(00:30):
talk about a seminal report thathe published in partnership
with College Futures Foundation.
It was called GoldenOpportunities Measuring Return
on Investment in CaliforniaHigher Education for Low and
Moderate Income Learners.
That report looked at all ofthe Title IV eligible
institutions in California andtook a dive into measuring
(00:50):
return on investment for low andmoderate income learners of
those institutions.
Since that report came out,michael and College Futures have
decided to partner again and wejust issued another report that
takes a deeper dive intoprogram-level data.
The report is titled CaliforniaPrograms that Pay Measuring
(01:11):
Return on Investment AcrossMajors and Credentials.
As many of you know, michaelhas a long history of looking at
data, federal data inparticular, since his time in
the Obama administrationoverseeing the implementation of
the college scorecard, to nowworking with the HEA group,
where he helps states,institutions and organizations
better understand what's goingon with learners through looking
(01:34):
at data.
So with that backdrop Michael,welcome back to the Rent.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Thanks so much for having me back.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Well, it's great to have you back, michael, and I
know you've been busy.
You've been busy continuing topartner with College Futures, so
let's talk a little bit aboutthat.
So, as I mentioned to ourviewers earlier this year, you
partnered with College Futuresto look at ROI in California
higher education.
Since that report came out,what kind of feedback did you
(02:03):
get based on that data?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, I think folks were genuinely excited to see it
.
You know this data has beenavailable for quite a while.
We started making earnings dataspecifically available through
the US Department of Educationin 2015.
And I think when we started ourdiscussions, you know it takes
a while for these things andconcepts to start resonating
(02:27):
with people and having a clearunderstanding of what actually
exists.
So, you know, you and I decidedto take a first crack at it and
, specifically in California,look at low and moderate income
students, the outcomes that theyget in terms of employment
relative to the cost thatthey're actually paying.
So this was an opportunity thatyou and I had thought about and
(02:51):
it came from a lot of dialoguethat I think we both were having
with legislators, advocates,institutions to say, hey, this
is an amazing starting point.
It provides us with a bird'seye view, but there are so much
nuance within institutionsthemselves, so we would love a
(03:11):
more detailed, robust report ifyou have that available, and
that's what we started to lookinto, and the results were made
public yesterday.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So, before we dive into what was in the report,
let's take a step back and justremind folks when we're talking
about low and moderate incomelearners, what's that threshold
for these reports?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So you know we're pigeonholed in a sense.
There are certain incomebrackets that our institutions
report to the federal governmentand how earnings data is
reported back from the federalgovernment.
So we decided to look atstudents whose family incomes
are between zero and $75,000.
Within that group of students,you know they pick a different
(03:58):
amount than your average studentor your more well-off student
and in turn they also make adifferent amount.
We know that, for a variety ofreasons, that these students may
come in with more obstacles,more systemic hurdles that they
have to jump over just to beable to access college in the
first place.
And when they do, they canoftentimes be the first person
(04:20):
in their family to attendcollege.
So it's really important whenwe think in terms of economic
mobility, this is a criticalgroup for us to consider in
terms of going, pursuing ahigher education, earning a
credential or a degree, andleaving them, these kinds of
students, better off than theprevious generation.
(04:41):
I mean, I'm sure you and me,you know we all come from
immigrants in some way, shape orform and that's sort of the
hope and goes along with thequote unquote American dream is
that we all want to leave ourchildren better off than we are.
So that's what we aim tomeasure looking at this specific
group.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Well, I appreciate the reminder to our listeners
that we all come from immigrantsand I think we need to get into
what they eat.
But we all come from immigrantsand and I certainly appreciate
the diversity we have here inCalifornia.
It's what makes Californiagreat.
So After that report, I got alot of calls and emails about
(05:23):
what's next.
Can we look deeper into what'sgoing on?
Can we better understand what'sgoing on?
And one of those biggestquestions was can we look at
programs?
You helped us understand theROI for these learners as they
attend institutions inCalifornia, but does a major
matter, does a credential matterin terms of return on
(05:46):
investment?
So, as you looked into thisdata, what were some of the
things that popped out at you inthe report?
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Well, as a sociology major, you know I could tell you
that my parents may or may nothave been their first choice,
but it's critical that folksthat choose to study all
different kinds of thingsultimately, like we said, leave
better off.
So we looked at it in a numberof different ways and I think
that there's encouraging news,as we saw in our last report,
(06:18):
and we should celebrate some ofthese things and learn from some
of these things.
Some of these things and learnfrom some of these things.
And essentially, we were ableto see that 88% of college
programs in California, whetherthose be grouping all of them
together certificates,associates and bachelor's degree
just looking at the whole, wecould see that 88% actually
allow the majority of graduatesable to recoup their costs
(06:40):
pretty quickly, within fiveyears or less.
We could see that about a thirdof college programs allow
graduates to recoup their costsextremely quickly, I would say
within one year or less.
So, like I said, you knowthere's a lot of room for
celebration.
And, just to remind folks,these are graduates we are
looking at, so this is sort of,you know, maybe the cream of the
(07:02):
crop.
These are students that havedone everything right in terms
of higher education.
They've gone to school, theypaid their tuition, they've
taken their classes, they'veearned their credential and then
they've entered the workforce.
So how quickly are they able torecruit these things?
So that's wonderful news.
Going back to what I waspreviously talking about, now on
the flip side of the coin,which we always have to examine,
(07:24):
talking about Now on the flipside of the coin, which we
always have to examine, we alsonoticed that out of our sample
of about 2,700 college programs,there were 112 where the
majority of graduates actuallywere left earning less than the
typical high school graduate.
Wow, yeah, and that's startling.
These are students, like wesaid.
They've done everything right.
We know that higher educationis an extremely high cost, or
(07:47):
can be an extremely high costnowadays.
People are making a hugeinvestment of time and money
Right, and they're expecting toearn more than someone with no
college experience.
So it was a bit worrisome tosee that.
It was a bit worrisome to seethat, but we've also highlighted
those within the report andwe're continuing to hope to
(08:08):
learn from that in terms of whatcan we do to ensure better
outcomes for all students whochoose to pursue a
post-secondary education.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Well, it seems to me and I know I've heard you talk
about it but the amount ofinformation that learners
actually have before they makethis investment is very limited.
It's anecdotal, it's marketingmessaging they really don't
understand the one that you werein sociology.
There's probably even lessinformation about how your
(08:38):
learning is going to connect toan economic outcome.
Now, obviously, you've beenable to connect it.
You've done quite well.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
In looking at the program level data, do you find
differences in programs that aremore directed to a job versus
programs that are a little so?
When we think of moreconceptual degrees like
sociology or a history major orEnglish major, you know you're
not going to.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
You're talking about all my kids.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
I mean, I'm still hoping that my 13-year-old will,
you know, choose to pursue apost-secondary education in the
first place, and if he does, whoknows what he'll go into.
But yeah, and a lot of uswithin this field have these
degrees to where, you know, youdon't.
There's no clear path.
There's a conceptual frameworkthat, as we've seen through our
(09:58):
experiences, can provide highlevel, you know, conceptual
thinking that will be beneficialin the workplace.
What we've seen is that at thosekinds of degrees, you know we
do notice that, yes, they'regoing to earn less than a
computer science major, rightStraight out of college, like we
kind of know that, but we donotice a lot of the liberal or
(10:18):
liberal arts majors if lack of abetter word will in turn be
able to earn more after they getmore settled into their careers
.
And we did see good outcomes fora lot of those most popular
majors which fall into some ofthose buckets.
You know, at bachelor's degreeswe saw communications, sociology
, psychology, where students,yes, they go to school longer,
(10:41):
they pay more because it takeslonger to get your degree, but
we still see the majority ofthose graduates at those
institutions able to recoupthose costs in five years or
less, Less, very quickly, butmost of them within that
five-year mark.
I'd argue that the less thanfour-year colleges, we start to
see more practical majors,whether this be vehicle
(11:03):
maintenance or becoming an HVACtechnician or a two-year nursing
degree, Just as an example.
These are students who aredirectly translatable to a
specific profession.
We see, you know, probablybecause of the relatively
affordable cost to yourinstitutions in California, we
(11:23):
noticed that generally they wereable to recoup their costs
really quickly.
So, bachelor's degrees, yes,those students may earn more of
a premium, you know, within fiveyears, maybe over the lifetime.
But there's also thataffordability component which is
so critical to ensure that,whoever you are and whatever you
choose to pursue, you're ableto do so within a reasonable
(11:43):
amount of time.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
And, by the way, I'm sure people are wondering where
do I get access to this report,and I will make sure to put the
web address and a link to thereport in the comment section of
this YouTube podcast.
Or, if you're listening onaudio, you can just go to
collegefuturesorg and it'll beright on the homepage.
(12:06):
Now you talked about some ofthese degree and credential
pathways.
What were some of the findings?
What did they look like?
The ones that troubled you themost Are there programs in the
state of California that have noreturn on investment and, if so
, what do they look like?
What kind of institutions dothey normally reside in?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yeah, and I mean I'd say that we see, you know it
goes across the spectrum interms of some programs fall in
every sector of education interms of outcomes.
You know good and bad and everylevel of education Right Now.
That being said, you know wecan see that there are some
(12:51):
riskier programs, you know, thatare disproportionately located
in certain areas.
So, just for example, I thinkthere were about a fifth of
college programs where themajority of graduates earn less
than the typical high schoolgrad that were delivered by
for-profit institutionsthemselves.
Now, they differ in terms ofwhat kind of education that they
(13:14):
typically provide.
You know they're more focusedon shorter term programs private
, nonprofit, public.
They generally are moreconcentrated in California at
four-year and two-yearinstitutions.
That being said, we also noticesome of these oftentimes shorter
term credentials certificateprograms to where some of them
(13:34):
work extremely well.
You know we can see that thereare a chunk of them that these
students get.
You know they go to schoolbetween six and 18 months.
They pay only that amount forthat amount of time.
They enter the workforce, theystart earning and they're able
to recoup their costs veryquickly when they work well.
They can be one of the fastestpaths to socioeconomic mobility.
(13:56):
But what was highlighted withinthe data itself is that they're
also some of the riskiestprograms.
And this does worry me, youknow, because when I think about
these two aspects of highereducation specifically you know
some actors in the for-profitindustry and those who focus on
shorter-term certificateprograms I also think about the
(14:18):
students that disproportionatelyenroll in these type of
programs, and they come fromunderserved populations.
They're oftentimes women andthey're oftentimes students of
color, so underrepresentedstudents.
So it's kind of, you know,worrisome to think that we may
be, or some aspects may be,perpetuating socioeconomic
(14:40):
inequality rather thanencouraging mobility.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
I completely agree because we here at College
Futures, we're focused on thekind of learner that you've
highlighted in this report Lowand moderate income learners.
These are learners in Californiawho have traditionally been
underserved.
They may or may not have had agood experience in traditional
post-secondary education, theymay be in the workforce and
(15:10):
they're thinking about going tocollege or going to some
post-secondary institution as ameans to improve their economic
livelihood, as a means to abetter job, a more stable
financial situation, a betterlife for themselves and for
their children.
By and large, every time thatwe engage in a survey, either
(15:31):
directly or in partnership withEstrada or Gallup, or reading
the work of the New America, byand large learners are saying
that one of the primary reasonsthey go is to improve their
economic mobility, is to get abetter job, to have a better
life.
And then we also hear that oneof the number one reasons that
(15:54):
they don't go or don't finish iscost.
So this question oftransparency and cost what
should they expect from theinstitution is a new concept,
but do you see it gaining ground, michael, in the work that
you're doing across the country?
Speaker 2 (16:10):
It took a while for us to get to this point.
You know we just started tohave this data.
I guess it's been nine years.
I mean, you would thinknormally that this would have
started to sink in more than ithas, but we are getting to that
point and there are so manyfactors that have contributed to
(16:31):
that.
We've seen the costs of highereducation, as we've discussed,
go up exponentially over thepast few decades, so folks have
started to think about this.
We hear the student debt number,which it goes up every time I
look, but it was like around 1.8trillion, you know, throughout,
all borrowers, throughout thenation.
(16:51):
And then we also have faced aglobal pandemic that we're just
getting over now.
So that put people in afinancial, a lot of financial
obstacles to overcome at thatpoint.
And then for students, as wemay recall, many of them and the
institutions pivoted whereeveryone was learning from home.
They were all paying the sameamount, but they were taking
(17:13):
classes from their parents'basement while paying tens of
thousands of dollars in somecases to get their degree, tens
of thousands of dollars in somecases to get their degree.
So I think these three factorstogether have really emphasized
for one of the largestinvestments that we are ever
going to make beyond getting ahome mortgage if we can afford
to do that with interest ratesnowadays is a college education,
(17:36):
and we want to make sure thatwe're starting to get a return
on our educational investmentwhen we choose to pursue that
degree.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
That's why we're doing the work that we're doing
at College Futures.
I mean, we really believe thatfor the learners that we are
focused on, they need more andbetter information about the
kinds of investments we'remaking, and we'd like to see all
institutions integrate economicmobility as part of a metric of
success for their institutions.
(18:05):
So we're going to continue towork on that.
Now, one of the questions thatI got after this report was
released was does brand matterthose big name, big brand
institutions that we hear abouta lot in California and
throughout the country we seeplaying football on Saturdays
Does brand matter in a return oninvestment or how do you think
(18:28):
about it?
How do you think about thoseinstitutions, or how should we
think about those institutions,in terms of how they serve
underserved learners andimproving their economic
mobility?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
I guess perhaps if you're one of the 1% of students
that go to the top schoolsbrand can certainly matter and
in a lot of folks' minds like itcertainly does.
I mean, what we've seen fromour report to reemphasize this
point is if you are a computerscience major and you go to
Stanford, you're going to beextremely well.
(19:00):
This is not a surprise to anyof us, but what we also saw
through this and our previousreport is that there are an
extremely small sliver of lowand moderate income students who
go to these very prestigiousschools.
99% of students are attendingother institutions within the
(19:21):
state and what we also saw isthat there are some institutions
that are broadly accessible.
They enroll a lot of studentsfrom different kinds of
backgrounds low and moderateincome backgrounds but they're
also shown to provide anextremely quick return on
students and graduates education, credential and educational
(19:41):
costs.
So I think to your point.
You know this provides broaderinformation and the folks who
were who come to all of ourminds and the top of our minds.
There are so many good options.
There are a number of goodoptions that may not be the few
very prestigious schools thatwe're often hearing about in the
(20:04):
news themselves.
So that's one of the advantagesof looking at the outcomes
themselves is, if I was astudent number one and a parent,
I want to make sure that I wantto be able to feel comfortable
sending my kids to this type ofinstitution.
Is it going to have a goodpayoff for that?
And, like I said, there aresome to where our pilot in the
(20:27):
report that are they're morerisky than we would feel
comfortable with.
But there are also a number ofgreat options that go beyond the
typical brand name that we hearabout and think about regularly
.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Whether it was this report or the previous report,
you've highlighted thatCalifornia public institutions
are a really good option formost, if not all, californians,
so we can be proud that ourpublic institutions are doing a
good job.
We want them to do a better job.
We want information to be moretransparent.
(21:02):
We're going to continue to pushto get more and better data out
there so that underservedlearners, low-income learners,
can make better decisions withthat information and that we
drive institutions and theirleaders to want to do more, to
want to do better, to not bepulled in the direction of
institutions that are rewardedfor rejecting a great number of
(21:23):
Californians, but insteadinstitutions that actually
embrace a large majority ofCalifornians.
So, as we move forward, a largemajority of Californians.
So as we move forward.
Michael, now that you've takena look at some of this data for
us, what are some of the thingsthat we should be thinking about
in the next couple of phases ofanalysis into this data?
What should we be looking forbeyond what you've already
(21:47):
exposed in these two reports?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Well, I think we've just started to peel back the
onion, and you know our intentwas to spur conversation.
We want other folks to beinvolved, we want to hear what
else they're looking for and wewant to think about what can be
helpful to institutions and,ultimately, for continuous
improvement purposes and tobetter student outcomes across
the state of California.
(22:11):
But something that has continuedto peek its head through the
sand are these institutions thatcontinue to punch above their
weight.
They are the ones serving abroad group of students and
they're leaving them withextremely good outcomes.
So we need to think about thesetypes of schools that serve the
(22:31):
majority of Californians, notjust the more exclusive
institutions that serve a very,very small percentage.
But who are the folks who areserving a broad group of
students, leaving them withbetter outcomes, and how can we
identify them, how can they berecognized and how can we learn
(22:52):
from them and have them learnfrom each other?
There's probably a bunch ofpeer institutions who serve
similar demographics, who mayhave good outcomes or a lot of
room for continuous improvement,but are there possibilities to
match these kinds of schoolswith each other, to benchmark
our results and to ultimatelymove towards a more robust and
(23:16):
inclusive and outcome-orientedpost-secondary education system
in California.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Well, listen, michael .
I really appreciate you takingthe time to sit down with me
again and talk about this newreport California Programs that
Pay, measuring Return onInvestment Across Majors and
Credentials for Institutionshere in California.
Again, if our listeners want totake a look at the report, they
can just Google it.
They can go to our website,wwwcollegefuturesorg.
(23:45):
I'll put the link in thecomment section.
I appreciate your work, michael.
You've given us a lot to thinkabout.
You've given us a lot to workon going forward and appreciate
your partnership now and intothe future.
Thanks for being with us.
Absolute pleasure, thank youEli.
All right?
Well, you've been listening tomy conversation with Michael
(24:06):
Iskowitz, who heads the HEAgroup.
We've been talking about thelatest report that he partnered
with College Futures, withCalifornia Programs that Pay,
measuring return on investmentacross majors and credentials.
I hope you enjoyed theinterview.
If you did hit the like button,continue to follow us on this
YouTube channel and on all ofyour favorite podcast platforms.
Take care, everybody, and we'llsee you soon, thank you.
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz-Oakley.
Welcome back to the RENTPodcast, the podcast that pulls
back the curtain and breaks downthe people, the policies and
the politics of our highereducation system.
In this episode we welcome backMichael Itzkiewicz of the HGA
Group.
As many of you recall, I hadMichael on earlier this year to
(00:30):
talk about a seminal report thathe published in partnership
with College Futures Foundation.
It was called GoldenOpportunities Measuring Return
on Investment in CaliforniaHigher Education for Low and
Moderate Income Learners.
That report looked at all ofthe Title IV eligible
institutions in California andtook a dive into measuring
(00:50):
return on investment for low andmoderate income learners of
those institutions.
Since that report came out,michael and College Futures have
decided to partner again and wejust issued another report that
takes a deeper dive intoprogram-level data.
The report is titled CaliforniaPrograms that Pay Measuring
(01:11):
Return on Investment AcrossMajors and Credentials.
As many of you know, michaelhas a long history of looking at
data, federal data inparticular, since his time in
the Obama administrationoverseeing the implementation of
the college scorecard, to nowworking with the HEA group,
where he helps states,institutions and organizations
better understand what's goingon with learners through looking
(01:34):
at data.
So with that backdrop Michael,welcome back to the Rent.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Thanks so much for having me back.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Well, it's great to have you back, michael, and I
know you've been busy.
You've been busy continuing topartner with College Futures, so
let's talk a little bit aboutthat.
So, as I mentioned to ourviewers earlier this year, you
partnered with College Futuresto look at ROI in California
higher education.
Since that report came out,what kind of feedback did you
(02:03):
get based on that data?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Well, I think folks were genuinely excited to see it
.
You know this data has beenavailable for quite a while.
We started making earnings dataspecifically available through
the US Department of Educationin 2015.
And I think when we started ourdiscussions, you know it takes
a while for these things andconcepts to start resonating
(02:27):
with people and having a clearunderstanding of what actually
exists.
So, you know, you and I decidedto take a first crack at it and
, specifically in California,look at low and moderate income
students, the outcomes that theyget in terms of employment
relative to the cost thatthey're actually paying.
So this was an opportunity thatyou and I had thought about and
(02:51):
it came from a lot of dialoguethat I think we both were having
with legislators, advocates,institutions to say, hey, this
is an amazing starting point.
It provides us with a bird'seye view, but there are so much
nuance within institutionsthemselves, so we would love a
(03:11):
more detailed, robust report ifyou have that available, and
that's what we started to lookinto, and the results were made
public yesterday.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So, before we dive into what was in the report,
let's take a step back and justremind folks when we're talking
about low and moderate incomelearners, what's that threshold
for these reports?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
So you know we're pigeonholed in a sense.
There are certain incomebrackets that our institutions
report to the federal governmentand how earnings data is
reported back from the federalgovernment.
So we decided to look atstudents whose family incomes
are between zero and $75,000.
Within that group of students,you know they pick a different
(03:58):
amount than your average studentor your more well-off student
and in turn they also make adifferent amount.
We know that, for a variety ofreasons, that these students may
come in with more obstacles,more systemic hurdles that they
have to jump over just to beable to access college in the
first place.
And when they do, they canoftentimes be the first person
(04:20):
in their family to attendcollege.
So it's really important whenwe think in terms of economic
mobility, this is a criticalgroup for us to consider in
terms of going, pursuing ahigher education, earning a
credential or a degree, andleaving them, these kinds of
students, better off than theprevious generation.
(04:41):
I mean, I'm sure you and me,you know we all come from
immigrants in some way, shape orform and that's sort of the
hope and goes along with thequote unquote American dream is
that we all want to leave ourchildren better off than we are.
So that's what we aim tomeasure looking at this specific
group.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Well, I appreciate the reminder to our listeners
that we all come from immigrantsand I think we need to get into
what they eat.
But we all come from immigrantsand and I certainly appreciate
the diversity we have here inCalifornia.
It's what makes Californiagreat.
So After that report, I got alot of calls and emails about
(05:23):
what's next.
Can we look deeper into what'sgoing on?
Can we better understand what'sgoing on?
And one of those biggestquestions was can we look at
programs?
You helped us understand theROI for these learners as they
attend institutions inCalifornia, but does a major
matter, does a credential matterin terms of return on
(05:46):
investment?
So, as you looked into thisdata, what were some of the
things that popped out at you inthe report?
Speaker 2 (05:55):
Well, as a sociology major, you know I could tell you
that my parents may or may nothave been their first choice,
but it's critical that folksthat choose to study all
different kinds of thingsultimately, like we said, leave
better off.
So we looked at it in a numberof different ways and I think
that there's encouraging news,as we saw in our last report,
(06:18):
and we should celebrate some ofthese things and learn from some
of these things.
Some of these things and learnfrom some of these things.
And essentially, we were ableto see that 88% of college
programs in California, whetherthose be grouping all of them
together certificates,associates and bachelor's degree
just looking at the whole, wecould see that 88% actually
allow the majority of graduatesable to recoup their costs
(06:40):
pretty quickly, within fiveyears or less.
We could see that about a thirdof college programs allow
graduates to recoup their costsextremely quickly, I would say
within one year or less.
So, like I said, you knowthere's a lot of room for
celebration.
And, just to remind folks,these are graduates we are
looking at, so this is sort of,you know, maybe the cream of the
(07:02):
crop.
These are students that havedone everything right in terms
of higher education.
They've gone to school, theypaid their tuition, they've
taken their classes, they'veearned their credential and then
they've entered the workforce.
So how quickly are they able torecruit these things?
So that's wonderful news.
Going back to what I waspreviously talking about, now on
the flip side of the coin,which we always have to examine,
(07:24):
talking about Now on the flipside of the coin, which we
always have to examine, we alsonoticed that out of our sample
of about 2,700 college programs,there were 112 where the
majority of graduates actuallywere left earning less than the
typical high school graduate.
Wow, yeah, and that's startling.
These are students, like wesaid.
They've done everything right.
We know that higher educationis an extremely high cost, or
(07:47):
can be an extremely high costnowadays.
People are making a hugeinvestment of time and money
Right, and they're expecting toearn more than someone with no
college experience.
So it was a bit worrisome tosee that.
It was a bit worrisome to seethat, but we've also highlighted
those within the report andwe're continuing to hope to
(08:08):
learn from that in terms of whatcan we do to ensure better
outcomes for all students whochoose to pursue a
post-secondary education.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
Well, it seems to me and I know I've heard you talk
about it but the amount ofinformation that learners
actually have before they makethis investment is very limited.
It's anecdotal, it's marketingmessaging they really don't
understand the one that you werein sociology.
There's probably even lessinformation about how your
(08:38):
learning is going to connect toan economic outcome.
Now, obviously, you've beenable to connect it.
You've done quite well.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
In looking at the program level data, do you find
differences in programs that aremore directed to a job versus
programs that are a little so?
When we think of moreconceptual degrees like
sociology or a history major orEnglish major, you know you're
not going to.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
You're talking about all my kids.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
I mean, I'm still hoping that my 13-year-old will,
you know, choose to pursue apost-secondary education in the
first place, and if he does, whoknows what he'll go into.
But yeah, and a lot of uswithin this field have these
degrees to where, you know, youdon't.
There's no clear path.
There's a conceptual frameworkthat, as we've seen through our
(09:58):
experiences, can provide highlevel, you know, conceptual
thinking that will be beneficialin the workplace.
What we've seen is that at thosekinds of degrees, you know we
do notice that, yes, they'regoing to earn less than a
computer science major, rightStraight out of college, like we
kind of know that, but we donotice a lot of the liberal or
(10:18):
liberal arts majors if lack of abetter word will in turn be
able to earn more after they getmore settled into their careers
.
And we did see good outcomes fora lot of those most popular
majors which fall into some ofthose buckets.
You know, at bachelor's degreeswe saw communications, sociology
, psychology, where students,yes, they go to school longer,
(10:41):
they pay more because it takeslonger to get your degree, but
we still see the majority ofthose graduates at those
institutions able to recoupthose costs in five years or
less, Less, very quickly, butmost of them within that
five-year mark.
I'd argue that the less thanfour-year colleges, we start to
see more practical majors,whether this be vehicle
(11:03):
maintenance or becoming an HVACtechnician or a two-year nursing
degree, Just as an example.
These are students who aredirectly translatable to a
specific profession.
We see, you know, probablybecause of the relatively
affordable cost to yourinstitutions in California, we
(11:23):
noticed that generally they wereable to recoup their costs
really quickly.
So, bachelor's degrees, yes,those students may earn more of
a premium, you know, within fiveyears, maybe over the lifetime.
But there's also thataffordability component which is
so critical to ensure that,whoever you are and whatever you
choose to pursue, you're ableto do so within a reasonable
(11:43):
amount of time.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
And, by the way, I'm sure people are wondering where
do I get access to this report,and I will make sure to put the
web address and a link to thereport in the comment section of
this YouTube podcast.
Or, if you're listening onaudio, you can just go to
collegefuturesorg and it'll beright on the homepage.
(12:06):
Now you talked about some ofthese degree and credential
pathways.
What were some of the findings?
What did they look like?
The ones that troubled you themost Are there programs in the
state of California that have noreturn on investment and, if so
, what do they look like?
What kind of institutions dothey normally reside in?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yeah, and I mean I'd say that we see, you know it
goes across the spectrum interms of some programs fall in
every sector of education interms of outcomes.
You know good and bad and everylevel of education Right Now.
That being said, you know wecan see that there are some
(12:51):
riskier programs, you know, thatare disproportionately located
in certain areas.
So, just for example, I thinkthere were about a fifth of
college programs where themajority of graduates earn less
than the typical high schoolgrad that were delivered by
for-profit institutionsthemselves.
Now, they differ in terms ofwhat kind of education that they
(13:14):
typically provide.
You know they're more focusedon shorter term programs private
, nonprofit, public.
They generally are moreconcentrated in California at
four-year and two-yearinstitutions.
That being said, we also noticesome of these oftentimes shorter
term credentials certificateprograms to where some of them
(13:34):
work extremely well.
You know we can see that thereare a chunk of them that these
students get.
You know they go to schoolbetween six and 18 months.
They pay only that amount forthat amount of time.
They enter the workforce, theystart earning and they're able
to recoup their costs veryquickly when they work well.
They can be one of the fastestpaths to socioeconomic mobility.
(13:56):
But what was highlighted withinthe data itself is that they're
also some of the riskiestprograms.
And this does worry me, youknow, because when I think about
these two aspects of highereducation specifically you know
some actors in the for-profitindustry and those who focus on
shorter-term certificateprograms I also think about the
(14:18):
students that disproportionatelyenroll in these type of
programs, and they come fromunderserved populations.
They're oftentimes women andthey're oftentimes students of
color, so underrepresentedstudents.
So it's kind of, you know,worrisome to think that we may
be, or some aspects may be,perpetuating socioeconomic
(14:40):
inequality rather thanencouraging mobility.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
I completely agree because we here at College
Futures, we're focused on thekind of learner that you've
highlighted in this report Lowand moderate income learners.
These are learners in Californiawho have traditionally been
underserved.
They may or may not have had agood experience in traditional
post-secondary education, theymay be in the workforce and
(15:10):
they're thinking about going tocollege or going to some
post-secondary institution as ameans to improve their economic
livelihood, as a means to abetter job, a more stable
financial situation, a betterlife for themselves and for
their children.
By and large, every time thatwe engage in a survey, either
(15:31):
directly or in partnership withEstrada or Gallup, or reading
the work of the New America, byand large learners are saying
that one of the primary reasonsthey go is to improve their
economic mobility, is to get abetter job, to have a better
life.
And then we also hear that oneof the number one reasons that
(15:54):
they don't go or don't finish iscost.
So this question oftransparency and cost what
should they expect from theinstitution is a new concept,
but do you see it gaining ground, michael, in the work that
you're doing across the country?
Speaker 2 (16:10):
It took a while for us to get to this point.
You know we just started tohave this data.
I guess it's been nine years.
I mean, you would thinknormally that this would have
started to sink in more than ithas, but we are getting to that
point and there are so manyfactors that have contributed to
(16:31):
that.
We've seen the costs of highereducation, as we've discussed,
go up exponentially over thepast few decades, so folks have
started to think about this.
We hear the student debt number,which it goes up every time I
look, but it was like around 1.8trillion, you know, throughout,
all borrowers, throughout thenation.
(16:51):
And then we also have faced aglobal pandemic that we're just
getting over now.
So that put people in afinancial, a lot of financial
obstacles to overcome at thatpoint.
And then for students, as wemay recall, many of them and the
institutions pivoted whereeveryone was learning from home.
They were all paying the sameamount, but they were taking
(17:13):
classes from their parents'basement while paying tens of
thousands of dollars in somecases to get their degree, tens
of thousands of dollars in somecases to get their degree.
So I think these three factorstogether have really emphasized
for one of the largestinvestments that we are ever
going to make beyond getting ahome mortgage if we can afford
to do that with interest ratesnowadays is a college education,
(17:36):
and we want to make sure thatwe're starting to get a return
on our educational investmentwhen we choose to pursue that
degree.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
That's why we're doing the work that we're doing
at College Futures.
I mean, we really believe thatfor the learners that we are
focused on, they need more andbetter information about the
kinds of investments we'remaking, and we'd like to see all
institutions integrate economicmobility as part of a metric of
success for their institutions.
(18:05):
So we're going to continue towork on that.
Now, one of the questions thatI got after this report was
released was does brand matterthose big name, big brand
institutions that we hear abouta lot in California and
throughout the country we seeplaying football on Saturdays
Does brand matter in a return oninvestment or how do you think
(18:28):
about it?
How do you think about thoseinstitutions, or how should we
think about those institutions,in terms of how they serve
underserved learners andimproving their economic
mobility?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
I guess perhaps if you're one of the 1% of students
that go to the top schoolsbrand can certainly matter and
in a lot of folks' minds like itcertainly does.
I mean, what we've seen fromour report to reemphasize this
point is if you are a computerscience major and you go to
Stanford, you're going to beextremely well.
(19:00):
This is not a surprise to anyof us, but what we also saw
through this and our previousreport is that there are an
extremely small sliver of lowand moderate income students who
go to these very prestigiousschools.
99% of students are attendingother institutions within the
(19:21):
state and what we also saw isthat there are some institutions
that are broadly accessible.
They enroll a lot of studentsfrom different kinds of
backgrounds low and moderateincome backgrounds but they're
also shown to provide anextremely quick return on
students and graduates education, credential and educational
(19:41):
costs.
So I think to your point.
You know this provides broaderinformation and the folks who
were who come to all of ourminds and the top of our minds.
There are so many good options.
There are a number of goodoptions that may not be the few
very prestigious schools thatwe're often hearing about in the
(20:04):
news themselves.
So that's one of the advantagesof looking at the outcomes
themselves is, if I was astudent number one and a parent,
I want to make sure that I wantto be able to feel comfortable
sending my kids to this type ofinstitution.
Is it going to have a goodpayoff for that?
And, like I said, there aresome to where our pilot in the
(20:27):
report that are they're morerisky than we would feel
comfortable with.
But there are also a number ofgreat options that go beyond the
typical brand name that we hearabout and think about regularly
.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
Whether it was this report or the previous report,
you've highlighted thatCalifornia public institutions
are a really good option formost, if not all, californians,
so we can be proud that ourpublic institutions are doing a
good job.
We want them to do a better job.
We want information to be moretransparent.
(21:02):
We're going to continue to pushto get more and better data out
there so that underservedlearners, low-income learners,
can make better decisions withthat information and that we
drive institutions and theirleaders to want to do more, to
want to do better, to not bepulled in the direction of
institutions that are rewardedfor rejecting a great number of
(21:23):
Californians, but insteadinstitutions that actually
embrace a large majority ofCalifornians.
So, as we move forward, a largemajority of Californians.
So as we move forward.
Michael, now that you've takena look at some of this data for
us, what are some of the thingsthat we should be thinking about
in the next couple of phases ofanalysis into this data?
What should we be looking forbeyond what you've already
(21:47):
exposed in these two reports?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Well, I think we've just started to peel back the
onion, and you know our intentwas to spur conversation.
We want other folks to beinvolved, we want to hear what
else they're looking for and wewant to think about what can be
helpful to institutions and,ultimately, for continuous
improvement purposes and tobetter student outcomes across
the state of California.
(22:11):
But something that has continuedto peek its head through the
sand are these institutions thatcontinue to punch above their
weight.
They are the ones serving abroad group of students and
they're leaving them withextremely good outcomes.
So we need to think about thesetypes of schools that serve the
(22:31):
majority of Californians, notjust the more exclusive
institutions that serve a very,very small percentage.
But who are the folks who areserving a broad group of
students, leaving them withbetter outcomes, and how can we
identify them, how can they berecognized and how can we learn
(22:52):
from them and have them learnfrom each other?
There's probably a bunch ofpeer institutions who serve
similar demographics, who mayhave good outcomes or a lot of
room for continuous improvement,but are there possibilities to
match these kinds of schoolswith each other, to benchmark
our results and to ultimatelymove towards a more robust and
(23:16):
inclusive and outcome-orientedpost-secondary education system
in California.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Well, listen, michael .
I really appreciate you takingthe time to sit down with me
again and talk about this newreport California Programs that
Pay, measuring Return onInvestment Across Majors and
Credentials for Institutionshere in California.
Again, if our listeners want totake a look at the report, they
can just Google it.
They can go to our website,wwwcollegefuturesorg.
(23:45):
I'll put the link in thecomment section.
I appreciate your work, michael.
You've given us a lot to thinkabout.
You've given us a lot to workon going forward and appreciate
your partnership now and intothe future.
Thanks for being with us.
Absolute pleasure, thank youEli.
All right?
Well, you've been listening tomy conversation with Michael
(24:06):
Iskowitz, who heads the HEAgroup.
We've been talking about thelatest report that he partnered
with College Futures, withCalifornia Programs that Pay,
measuring return on investmentacross majors and credentials.
I hope you enjoyed theinterview.
If you did hit the like button,continue to follow us on this
YouTube channel and on all ofyour favorite podcast platforms.
Take care, everybody, and we'llsee you soon, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!