September 23, 2025 • 36 mins
Season four of the Rant Podcast kicks off with a deep dive into educational value and economic mobility. Host Eloy Ortiz-Oakley welcomes returning guest Michael Itzkowitz to discuss their groundbreaking "Golden Returns" report examining which California community colleges and certificate programs deliver the strongest financial returns for students.
The conversation unveils surprising findings about which two-year institutions truly help students climb the economic ladder. Itzkowitz explains how they measured return on investment by comparing attendance costs against earnings premiums, revealing that some institutions enable students to recoup their educational investment in as little as a year through higher earnings. The analysis spans 327 institutions across 12 California regions, recognizing that most community college students choose schools within driving distance of home.
What makes this research particularly timely is its alignment with new federal accountability measures. As Ortiz-Oakley and Itzkowitz discuss, recent legislation will require degree programs to demonstrate that graduates earn more than typical high school graduates – though certificate programs remain exempt despite being analyzed in the Golden Returns report. This accountability gap represents both a challenge and opportunity for institutions and policymakers.
Beyond the data, the conversation explores how institutional leaders are responding to these findings. Some college presidents, like Dr. Keith Curry from Compton College, are using even less-than-flattering results as catalysts for improvement, examining program offerings and workforce alignment. This exemplifies the report's ultimate purpose: not to shame institutions, but to spark meaningful conversations about educational value.
Whether you're a student weighing educational options, an institutional leader seeking improvement strategies, or a policy advocate working toward greater transparency in higher education, this episode offers invaluable insights into the economics of two-year college education. Check out the full Golden Returns report at collegefutures.org to see how institutions in your region perform.
www.collegefutures.org
eloy@4leggedmedia.com
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 and welcome back to
the Rant Podcast, the podcastwhere we've been pulling back
the curtain and breaking downthe people, the policies and the
politics of our highereducation system.
Welcome back to now, seasonfour of the Rant podcast.
Hard to believe that we beganthis journey 65 episodes ago and
(00:33):
here we are in the 66th episode.
I want to thank all of oursponsors that have made the Rant
podcast possible.
You can visit them on the Rantwebsite.
A big thank you to all of themfor making this possible.
Now, the fourth season.
I also want to thank all of you, our listeners and our viewers,
(00:56):
whether you're listening to uson your favorite podcast audio
platform or watching us here onthis YouTube channel.
This has now become one of themost watched and most listened
to higher education podcasts inthe nation, so thank you for
making this a success and forbringing us back for a fourth
season.
I'm looking forward to digginginto all the issues once again,
(01:20):
whether it's the Trumpadministration and the impacts
on the higher educationmarketplace, ai and its impacts
on how teaching and learningwill look now and into the
future, the impacts on theworkforce and the marketplace,
the economy and everything inbetween.
Lots going on, lots of chaos,lots of uncertainty and a huge
(01:44):
need for leadership in highereducation in this country.
So I look forward to digginginto these issues and many more
with the great guests that wealready have lined up, as well
as with all of you.
Look forward to your feedback,whether in the comment sections
of this podcast or the emailaddress that I have in the notes
(02:04):
section of the podcast.
Please let us know how we'redoing, suggest new episodes, new
topics or new great guests.
Today I'm joined by MichaelItzkiewicz Once again.
This is the third timeMichael's been on the podcast.
Michael heads the HEA group andhe's been looking at higher
(02:24):
education data for his entirecareer.
Michael and the HEA group haveonce again partnered with
College Futures Foundation toissue another report on return
on investments, this timefocused on California's two-year
institutions andcertificate-granting
institutions two-yearinstitutions and
certificate-grantinginstitutions.
So we're talking about theCalifornia community colleges,
(02:51):
other nonprofit institutionsthat issue associate degrees, as
well as thecertificate-granting
institutions here in California.
So, whether they're a private,private, nonprofit or a public
institution, we took a look atthese institutions and looked at
the return on investment.
Michael and his team have donea great job once again of
(03:11):
breaking down the data showingwhich institutions are providing
California's most underservedlearners the best return on
investment, and this time we'refocused on the two-year
institutions and thecertificate-granting
institutions.
You can view the report, calledGolden Returns, at the College
Futures website atcollegefuturesorg Again
(03:34):
collegefuturesorg you candownload the report as well as
all of the data associated withthe ROI breakdown.
So, before I get started in myinterview with Michael, I just
want to once again thank you allfor tuning in.
There is so much going on inhigher education these days and
the landscape is changing by theday.
(03:56):
By the time that we publishthis episode, I'm sure things
will once again change.
So we're going to continue toweigh in on these issues,
continue to weigh in on thechanges that the Trump
administration is proposing orforcing upon higher education
leaders.
We're going to focus on thereaction that the higher
education marketplace isinvolved in, particularly in
(04:18):
light of all of the threats todiversity, equity and inclusion
programs, or the focus oncreating greater value in the
higher education marketplace,which is something that the Rant
podcast supports.
We support getting and digginginto the transparency in the
(04:38):
higher education marketplace,opening the door to more
on-ramps, to a greatpost-secondary experience, not
restricting them.
So we're going to continue tolean in on these issues and I
hope you join us along the way.
And with that backdrop, pleaseonce again welcome Michael
Itzkwitz, president of the HEAgroup.
(04:59):
Michael, welcome back to theRant Podcast.
Hey, eli, how you doing?
I'm doing well.
It's great to have you back.
You are now a regular on theRant Podcast and, of course,
that's because you're doing alot of great work.
So thanks for being back withus and I know many people
already know you and know yourwork.
You head HEA Group, whichproduces a lot of great data, a
(05:23):
lot of great analysis group,which produces a lot of great
data, a lot of great analysis.
And for the purposes of ourwork with you at College Futures
, you've been doing a lot ofwork for us on highlighting
value, and this time incommunity colleges.
We'll talk about that report ina minute, but first let me just
ask you how you're doing andwhat's sort of keeping you up at
night these days and all thenews from Washington DC.
Wow, what's keeping me?
(05:43):
What's sort of keeping you upat night these days and all the
news from Washington DC?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Wow, what's keeping me up in the morning is waking
up at six o'clock to take mykids back to school at two
separate schools.
So we are just figuring thatout, so I haven't had that much
time to think about stuff, butthere's a lot keeping me up.
But I think, like you, I'vebeen focused on a lot of
opportunities as well.
So great See some optimism andways to move forward, and that's
(06:10):
why we're here.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
That's why we're here Now.
One of the things that we'lltalk a little bit about as we
talk about the work that you'vebeen doing with Color Futures is
one of the headlines recently.
Among many is the recentlysigned into law reconciliation
bill and in that bill there is aframework for accountability
(06:34):
for higher ed institutions,particularly those institutions
that have access to Title IV.
A lot of talk about thatfederal framework, and we'll
talk about the way that wemeasure value, but what are your
initial thoughts about thefederal framework?
Did they get it right?
Do we still have work to do?
Speaker 2 (06:52):
I think, in terms of the accountability provision, it
is a step forward.
There's always room forimprovement.
But before this, you know, wekind of had something called the
cohort default rate, which wasput in place in the 1990s when I
was seven years old.
So perhaps it was time for anupdate and no one really filled
(07:12):
the cohort default rate.
It worked very well at the time.
We had 20% defaults that wentdown to single digits, and then
people kind of figured out howto game it, even though we see
these outcomes that aren't asstrong as we would like.
So the new accountabilityframework does move us forward
in terms of ensuring betteroutcomes for some institutions
(07:35):
and some programs I would saymost institutions and most
programs.
So specifically, it looks atassociate's degree programs or
bachelor's degree programs, andit ensures that students will
only be able to take out loansif they are making more than the
typical high school graduatewithin their state four years
(07:55):
after they graduate theinstitution.
It also goes a step further.
They look at graduate programs,which is kind of the first of
its kind, and they ensure thatstudents are going to be making
more than a bachelor's degreerecipient in their state within
a similar field of study.
So you know, these are bigthings, especially as students
are sort of questioning thevalue of higher education more
(08:18):
so than the past.
There were some omissions fromthe bill, specifically
certificate programs.
So you and I both know, youknow we see a need for
certificate programs.
When they work well, they canbe one of the fastest paths to
socioeconomic mobility andthat's great.
When students go to a place,they pay a certain amount, they
(08:40):
gain a skill, they enter theworkforce and off they go.
But they're also some of themost riskiest credentials.
So you know, like everything,some bright spots, some areas
for improvement, and here we are.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
And here we are, and here we are.
I agree with you that this is,I think, at least the right step
forward, not the last step, buta first step.
Just the fact that we'reactually talking about
implementing an accountabilityframework is a huge step,
because I think that's been oneof the missing pieces.
Many of us have been workingand supporting increased access
(09:16):
for more individuals,particularly low-income
individuals, ensuring thatthere's greater access and
capacity at our institutions,and we fueled that through Pell,
through access to reallyuncapped student loan amounts in
many cases, particularly at thegraduate level, but we didn't
(09:41):
think about the accountabilityfor the institutions, and I
think that is the next rightstep.
Now, exactly how we get there.
I think there's still a lot tobe discussed, and I think it's a
healthy discussion, but atleast we're on our way toward
greater accountability, our waytoward greater accountability.
So, speaking of accountability,you have partnered once again
with College Futures, this timetaking a close look at
(10:03):
California's two-year colleges,or community colleges, as well
as certificate-grantingutions,and the report is called Golden
Returns.
Our viewers can check it out onthe College Futures website at
collegefuturesorg.
You can easily get to thereport from the homepage.
(10:25):
So, michael, this is as opposedto the last report, which
created the California MobilityIndex and focused on four-year
institutions in California.
This focuses on two-yearinstitutions and
certificate-grantinginstitutions.
What are some of the biggestdifferences, before we get into
(10:46):
the results between the twostudies?
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Yeah.
So the study that we releasedin February this year was called
the California Mobility Index,and what we did is we looked at
four-year institutions.
So that's one of the maindifferences when looking at that
in comparison to our new GoldenReturns report for low and
(11:09):
moderate income students atthese institutions.
We ran a report and analysis afew years back at this point and
we saw that there were a lot ofinstitutions that provided a
really quick ROI in California,and some at the top of the list
were places like Stanford orother very selective
(11:30):
institutions.
But right next to their namewas another number and it was
the percentage of low andmoderate income students that
actually went to thoseinstitutions, and it was
oftentimes below 20%.
So we started thinking andtalking well, okay, if you're
one of the lucky and few of thefortunate to get in there,
you're going to have an amazingROI.
There's no doubt about that.
(11:51):
But it's these otherinstitutions that actually serve
a broad group of students,bring them in, lift them up and
leave them better off than theprevious generation.
So the California MobilityIndex looked at ROI, but then we
also incorporated thepercentage of Pell to think
about which schools are actuallyenrolling a broad group of
(12:12):
students and leaving them betterat home.
So you know that wasfascinating just to see the
response and the results that wegot on that.
Now, I guess, six or sevenmonths later, we know that so
many students have differentpathways, especially in
California, when it comes topost-secondary education.
So we wanted to look atcommunity and career colleges
(12:33):
across the state, specificallyfocusing on four-year
institutions, and within thisanalysis, you know we were able
to look at 327 of these acrossthe entire state.
We understand that a lot ofthese students that go to these
colleges typically go withindriving distance of where they
live or where they work.
(12:53):
So we thought it was criticalto think about a regional
perspective.
So we did break it up into 12different regions throughout the
state and we specificallylooked at ROI for these colleges
so that if you were a studentor wanted a better understanding
of which institutions areproviding a strong ROI within my
(13:14):
community, within where I live,who?
is increasing that.
Where can I get the best bangfor my educational bond?
Speaker 1 (13:21):
So, before we dive into the two-year, you mentioned
a name that has been stickingin my head the last couple of
weeks, which is Stanford, and Ithink this gives a really good
example of why we at CollegeFutures feel that this kind of
analysis is so important.
Stanford, as you mentioned, hasa really high ROI for the few
(13:43):
in the fortunate that attend butserve a really low percentage
of Pell eligible studentslow-income students as opposed
to some of the top performers inthat survey were in the Cal
State system, particularlyplaces like Cal State, la, which
serve a high number oflow-income students and have a
(14:03):
great return.
It strikes me because you maynot be following California news
these days but a place likeStanford is seriously thinking
about continuing its legacyadmissions, is seriously
thinking about bringing backadmissions exams like the SAT
and the ACT, which will onlyfurther reinforce the findings
(14:25):
that we have there.
So it's just amazing to me, andI think why this kind of
analysis is important right nowis for the public to truly
understand how its institutionsare serving the majority of
Californians, and the majorityof Californians are low to
(14:46):
moderate income Californians.
So we want to continue toprovide that transparency so
that people know the choicesthat they're making, to provide
that transparency so that peopleknow the choices that they're
making.
Now let's jump into the twoyears.
As opposed to the four-yearinstitutions, there's a lot less
variety in terms of the kindsof populations that these
institutions are serving.
By and large, theseinstitutions are serving a wide
(15:09):
swath of low to moderate incomelearners, and so, as you
mentioned, the analysis that youdid was by region.
California is a big state.
We broke it down by regions,but we had some really
interesting results from topperformers.
In the Bay Area, for example,skyline College came out number
(15:29):
one in this analysis statewide.
But we also saw some reallystrong performers in the San
Diego region.
Three of the San Diegocommunity colleges came out in
the top five in that region.
And then, of course, we sawcolleges throughout the state
who had some really greatperformance and, of course, as I
(15:50):
said, our viewers can check outthe full analysis at
collegefuturesorg.
But we also had twohigh-performing for-profits
Unitech.
What do you see as the mainsimilarities of these top
performers that came out in youranalysis?
Speaker 2 (16:11):
When we were thinking about the study, we wanted to
include every option where wehad, because students are
considering all of these options.
So that's public institutions,that's private, nonprofit
institutions, that's for-profitinstitutions.
I think there are 121 publicinstitutions within the state
that we looked at and most ofthem are actually private.
(16:34):
They're private, nonprofit,private for-profit.
We covered 1.2 millionundergraduate students within
the entire study and theydiffered very much by region.
To your point.
I mean, there are some regionswhere they're very densely
populated and therefore theyhave more options for students
to consider.
(16:54):
Los Angeles region 87 options.
That's a tremendous amount ofoptions depending on where you
live.
Other areas only two options,only one option.
So that might be the onlychoice that students can
consider.
So what we saw is that withinthese economic regions, there's
a wide disparity in terms of theoutcomes that students can get
(17:17):
for one of these investments oftime and money that's supposed
to lead them to a better life.
So, like many other of ouranalyses, when we're looking at
the data, we just see howcritical it is that we lead
students to make the right firststep.
That can have a tremendousimpact on their trajectory.
And ultimately, we want a morecompetitive California workforce
(17:39):
.
We want a more competitiveAmerican workforce and we also
know that so many jobs are goingto require some sort of
post-secondary education Evenwithin the next five years.
I think it's over 70%, so it'sjust really critical to get this
information in the hands ofstudents and parents as they're
considering these options.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Well, we certainly agree with that.
Now, this analysis, as youmentioned, is about time and
money.
It's really strictly a returnon investment.
Look, can you break down themethodology that you used here
in this analysis?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Yeah, so, like you said, we generally know students
do come from all over the place, but they're typically low and
moderate income students whopopulate these institutions.
But we wanted them to have agood sense of how much they're
paying and what kind of returnare they going to get on their
investment.
So first we looked at somethingcalled net paying and what kind
(18:36):
of return are they going to geton their investment.
So first we looked at somethingcalled net cost and that's
generally how much students arepaying out of pocket.
After all, grants andscholarships are deducted, this
could be a Cal Grant, this couldbe a Pell Grant.
It takes that into account andsays how much left over do I
have to pay, whether that's yourpersonal finances or through
federal loans that many have tofinance their education and or
(18:56):
living expenses through.
But then how much more are youmaking by attending an
institution in the first place?
That's something that we callan earnings premium and
specifically we looked at howmuch students are making at the
college 10 years after they'veenrolled, in comparison to the
typical high school graduate inCalifornia who is aged between
(19:21):
25 and 34 years old, and we cansee through census data, those
students, that comparison groupof high school graduates.
They make about $32,400 a year.
So you have to make more thanthat and everyone expects to
make more than that if they goand attend a post-secondary
institution.
So, just as an example, oneschool we looked at I think the
(19:43):
largest community college inCalifornia, american River
College.
It costs about $9,200 to get adegree within two years.
If you finished in the year is$4,600 a year, something like
that.
But we can also see thatstudents who attend that college
earn about $7,500 more.
So in order to recoup those$9,200 in out-of-pocket costs,
(20:07):
if you're making $7,200 or so,it's going to take you about 1.2
years.
So that's how we evaluated allof these institutions.
That's based off of how muchstudents pay relative to the
additional earnings they get,and we're able to have a good
understanding of how long ittakes them to recoup those costs
.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Now, given the new federal framework that we will
be talking more about in thecoming months, how does this
kind of analysis compare to thekind of analysis that the
federal government will use tojudge whether a program of study
is creating enough value toqualify for access to the
(20:54):
student loan program?
Speaker 2 (20:55):
So we've been working on this for a while now, before
that bill was signed into law,and it uses very similar metrics
and I think that that can bevery informative to the field,
as they're being proactive tomake sure that their programs
are performing the way that theywant them to and ensuring that
(21:17):
their students, their graduates,are earning more than that
threshold which we use and isthe same actually in the new
federal law.
Our comparison for high schoolstudents, high school graduates,
within the state that theinstitution is located, age
between 25 and 34 years old, weuse data from the federal
(21:38):
government through theDepartment of Education.
That's what they use.
That's $32,400 in California.
So in the big, the great bigbill, or whatever it is,
officially it's the sameDifferent names depending on
where you're coming from, right,yeah?
But it's written the same.
You know, it's this comparisongroup that was written by, I
(22:00):
think, mostly Republicansenators and then passed through
the House Right, and it'ssomething that's generally
agreed upon.
I mean, this is prettybipartisan in nature in terms of
ensuring good outcomes forstudents and taxpayers alike.
So I think that this is, again,you know, the beginning of a
conversation which institutions,policymakers, systems can use
(22:21):
as a helpful starting point.
You know the analysis that weput out and then, of course,
they have to start lookinginternally at their programs and
looking at the outcomes for alldifferent kinds of students in
all different kinds of programs.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
I agree.
I think it is an excellent toolfor institutional leaders to
begin to look at their ownprograms.
Look at this analysis givesthem a bit of a foreshadowing of
how they will be measured inthe future.
Now, one of the things that youmentioned that's missing from
the federal framework arecertificates.
So the federal framework wouldnot look at certificate-granting
(22:59):
institutions in the same way wedid in this report.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yeah, I mean it's programmatic in the federal bill
, so our analysis isspecifically focused on
institutions how well theseinstitutions perform, regardless
of which program that they'rein form, regardless of which
program that they're in.
We can see so many institutionscommunity colleges and private
(23:25):
colleges alike now focusing alot on certificate programs.
So if they offered acertificate program, they would
be exempt from ensuring thoseoutcomes that are present within
the federal bill and federalstatute.
If they offer associate'sdegree programs, which many have
a mix nowadays, specificallycommunity colleges then they
(23:49):
would be held accountable andhave to ensure that those
students are at least earningthat.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Well, particularly at a time when the federal
government is opening theaperture to short-term Pell and
other certificate-type programsof study, I'm sure that the call
for more accountability andtransparency in certificates
will ramp up.
That's certainly something thatwe would support at College
Futures.
So we'll see where this allgoes, but I think this is again
(24:20):
a great analysis forinstitutions in California to
begin looking at their programsof study.
And while we're talking a lotabout accountability, I mean the
issue here as well istransparency and more and better
information for the consumer,the learner, the learner and
their family, so that whenthey're making choices, they
(24:41):
have better information on whichprograms of study will lead to
the kind of outcome that they'rehoping to see.
And let's be frank, 99% ofpeople entering these
institutions or these programsof study have something at the
top of their head which isimproving their economic
(25:01):
stability, improving theireconomic outcome, and we, as
educators, that's what we sell.
So we broke this down by region.
Why is it important that welook at this analysis by region?
I know you mentioned oneexample, which is most students
go to a community college or acertificate-granting institution
(25:24):
within driving range or withina bus route of their home.
What are some of the otherreasons that you found is
important to break this down byregion.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
I think it was a TICA study a while back and it
showed the average distance thatstudents travel to get to
college is 17 miles Two-thirdsof students travel within 50
miles of their house.
So that's number one.
Number two California is like awhole country within itself.
(25:54):
It's very different.
There's different spots,there's different opportunities,
there's different kinds ofindustry.
So it makes a lot of sense tothink about regionality because
it can have different costs ofliving.
It's going to cost very youknow, a very different amount in
one area in comparison to SanFrancisco, where no one can.
(26:14):
So you know, we had to thinkabout this and take these things
into account and that was oneof the main considerations.
And you know, again, we lookedat our friends, calcompetes,
their regional lab.
So we kind of took the lead onthat as an example of how we
could break this down regional.
And this was a first step andyou know we've gotten a lot of
(26:36):
great feedback since then.
You know people are thinkingabout this, people are talking
about it, they're thinking aboutother ways to measure ROI and
student performance.
So you know, I would say thatthis is exactly what we wanted.
I'm not the smartest person inthe world, but there are many
other smart people in the stateof California who are thinking
about this and you know it's soencouraging to think about where
(26:57):
we can go.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Well, I agree and my team agrees.
That's exactly why we wanted toget this information out there.
Yes, we have a methodology thatwe partner with you to use and
very similar to the methodologythat folks in DC have been
thinking about and now trying toput into motion.
Even in the Bidenadministration, similar
(27:22):
methodology was being used tohighlight low-value programs.
So this isn't anything new thatyou've done.
We've just really tightened thelens and focused it on
California institutions.
Now, you mentioned a lot ofpeople are talking about this.
Certainly, I've heard a lot ofinternal chatter here in
California.
I've heard from my good friendsin states like Arizona and
(27:44):
others about some of theshortcomings, and so we welcome
that conversation.
Are there shortcomings?
Yes, I'm sure that there are,but that's why we want to force
this conversation.
We want states to really thinkabout how to better measure.
What kind of data do we need todo a better job of measuring?
Because certainly, as somebodywho was born and raised in
(28:05):
California, there is a widevariety of access to good paying
jobs available, depending onthe kind of career pathway you
take, than, say, the InlandEmpire or the Imperial Valley.
So part of this analysis alsohighlights the importance of
(28:30):
aligning with local workforce,the importance of institutions
working with employers, withother organizations in the
region.
I think the fact that three SanDiego community colleges showed
good results is a testament tothe work that they've been doing
in San Diego to align theworkforce for many, many, many
(28:51):
years.
So how do you see some of theworkforce issues or the
availability of jobs in a regionplaying into the outcomes that
we're seeing?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, I love that.
I mean so.
Through Georgetown Center forEducation and Workforce, we can
see that there's a hugemisalignment between the
credentials that are beingawarded relative to the jobs
that will be available.
So it's sort of a wake-up callat this point.
But we also are an opportunityto think about that a little
(29:23):
deeper and I'm excited by theconversations I've heard about
these next steps.
You know, just as an example,there are 87 institutions,
community and career colleges inLos Angeles.
This was at an institutionlevel.
This analysis no-transcript.
(30:06):
So I've heard so many leaderstalking about this and about
that next step.
How do we get to that next step?
How do we think about alignment?
There are so many otherbenefits of colleges that we all
realize and recognize Morelikely to vote, more healthy,
more happy, so many things.
But if students are makingenough to make ends meet, how
(30:28):
would we expect them to becivically engaged when they
don't have time?
They're working two jobs.
It's just not going to happen.
How are we going to expect themto be healthy?
How are we going to expect themto be as happy as we want them?
So this is really a minimumthreshold that we're talking
about here, and so many otherfolks are way beyond that.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
It is a minimum threshold but, as you said, you
know our focus in this analysis,as well as the mobility index
at College Futures, our focus ison those underserved learners
in California college futures.
Our focus is on thoseunderserved learners in
California, and this is thepopulation of learners that is
absolutely struggling in thiseconomy, in the workforce, and
(31:09):
our institutions need to bethere to do a much better job of
helping lift them up.
Because, as you said, it'sreally hard to participate in
civic life, to stay healthy, tobe a participant in democracy,
if you're struggling to makeends meet, if you can't find a
place to live, and it's nosurprise that this frustration
(31:34):
that people feel leads to beingattracted to a more populous
message from politicians.
So I think if we put a tighterlens on this, shine a brighter
light on this, in addition toother important outcomes like
completion, like persistence,like access, this has to be one
(31:55):
on the same playing field and Ireally love the way that one of
our college presidents hasreacted, dr Keith Curry from
Compton College.
His institution wasn't one ofthe top performers, it's sort of
in the middle of the pack ornear the bottom third of the
pack, but he took this as a callto action, really thinking
(32:16):
about how he works with hisacademic leaders, his student
success leaders, thinking abouthow to dig into their programs
of study and using this in apositive way, not in a way to
cast dispersions on theinstitution or its leadership,
but to actually use this as arallying call.
(32:37):
So I hope more leaders thinkabout it that way, to actually
use this as a rallying call.
So I hope more leaders thinkabout it that way.
Now let me ask you one lastquestion as we begin to wrap up.
A lot of states are working toimprove career connections.
Workforce connections createmore value from their
institutions.
Everywhere, from Texas toKentucky to Alabama, state after
(32:59):
state is really thinking abouthow does it use data to improve
the transparency, to improveoutcomes.
California is in that same boatwith the cradle to career data
system that it recently launched.
What advice do you have forresearchers in this space or
institutional leaders in thisspace hoping to improve on this
(33:23):
kind of analysis?
What additional data do youthink they need?
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Yeah, at this point, my advice would be don't let the
perfect be the enemy of thegood.
You know, you were talking about.
Well, our study could beimproved upon.
Like I wish, I was in theshower and I said I just found
the best way to evaluateinstitutions.
That's the answer.
And if you work through thisdata like, you know that there
are so many limitations, but youalso can get to a point where
(33:50):
it's extremely action, andthat's where we ended up.
So I would love to see moreclear data, more understandable
data for people that aren'tacademics, for people that are
academics, for people that areresearchers, so that if you're a
college president who's dealingwith a hundred issues, you can
have information in front ofyour face and at least begin the
(34:10):
conversation.
So I would love to see moreclear and accessible information
throughout states and withinindividual regions, throughout
those states.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Well, I hope for the same.
I think this is a great firststep forward.
We here in California want tocontinue to build on this.
The data that you use forgolden returns is available to
the public.
If there are better ways tolook at this data, then we are
certainly open to thosesuggestions.
But in the meantime, pleasetake the time to take a look at
the Golden Returns report andthe analysis behind it.
(34:51):
So, michael, once again, thankyou for partnering with College
Futures on this report.
Thank you for shining a lighton the data and helping us see
return on investment in a waythat we really hadn't focused on
it before.
And thank you for being on theRant podcast.
Once again, it's a pleasure.
(35:11):
Thank you, eli.
All right, you've been listeningto my conversation with Michael
Litzkowitz.
He heads the HEA group, whichpartnered with College Futures
to publish a report calledGolden Returns.
You can access the report atcollegefuturesorg.
I'll put the link to thewebsite in the notes section of
(35:32):
the podcast.
If you're watching us onYouTube, please hit subscribe.
Continue to follow us.
And if you're listening to uson your audio podcast, continue
to follow us on your favoritepodcast platform.
Thanks for joining us,everybody, and we will see you
all soon, thank you.
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz-Oakley and welcome back to
the Rant Podcast, the podcastwhere we've been pulling back
the curtain and breaking downthe people, the policies and the
politics of our highereducation system.
Welcome back to now, seasonfour of the Rant podcast.
Hard to believe that we beganthis journey 65 episodes ago and
(00:33):
here we are in the 66th episode.
I want to thank all of oursponsors that have made the Rant
podcast possible.
You can visit them on the Rantwebsite.
A big thank you to all of themfor making this possible.
Now, the fourth season.
I also want to thank all of you, our listeners and our viewers,
(00:56):
whether you're listening to uson your favorite podcast audio
platform or watching us here onthis YouTube channel.
This has now become one of themost watched and most listened
to higher education podcasts inthe nation, so thank you for
making this a success and forbringing us back for a fourth
season.
I'm looking forward to digginginto all the issues once again,
(01:20):
whether it's the Trumpadministration and the impacts
on the higher educationmarketplace, ai and its impacts
on how teaching and learningwill look now and into the
future, the impacts on theworkforce and the marketplace,
the economy and everything inbetween.
Lots going on, lots of chaos,lots of uncertainty and a huge
(01:44):
need for leadership in highereducation in this country.
So I look forward to digginginto these issues and many more
with the great guests that wealready have lined up, as well
as with all of you.
Look forward to your feedback,whether in the comment sections
of this podcast or the emailaddress that I have in the notes
(02:04):
section of the podcast.
Please let us know how we'redoing, suggest new episodes, new
topics or new great guests.
Today I'm joined by MichaelItzkiewicz Once again.
This is the third timeMichael's been on the podcast.
Michael heads the HEA group andhe's been looking at higher
(02:24):
education data for his entirecareer.
Michael and the HEA group haveonce again partnered with
College Futures Foundation toissue another report on return
on investments, this timefocused on California's two-year
institutions andcertificate-granting
institutions two-yearinstitutions and
certificate-grantinginstitutions.
So we're talking about theCalifornia community colleges,
(02:51):
other nonprofit institutionsthat issue associate degrees, as
well as thecertificate-granting
institutions here in California.
So, whether they're a private,private, nonprofit or a public
institution, we took a look atthese institutions and looked at
the return on investment.
Michael and his team have donea great job once again of
(03:11):
breaking down the data showingwhich institutions are providing
California's most underservedlearners the best return on
investment, and this time we'refocused on the two-year
institutions and thecertificate-granting
institutions.
You can view the report, calledGolden Returns, at the College
Futures website atcollegefuturesorg Again
(03:34):
collegefuturesorg you candownload the report as well as
all of the data associated withthe ROI breakdown.
So, before I get started in myinterview with Michael, I just
want to once again thank you allfor tuning in.
There is so much going on inhigher education these days and
the landscape is changing by theday.
(03:56):
By the time that we publishthis episode, I'm sure things
will once again change.
So we're going to continue toweigh in on these issues,
continue to weigh in on thechanges that the Trump
administration is proposing orforcing upon higher education
leaders.
We're going to focus on thereaction that the higher
education marketplace isinvolved in, particularly in
(04:18):
light of all of the threats todiversity, equity and inclusion
programs, or the focus oncreating greater value in the
higher education marketplace,which is something that the Rant
podcast supports.
We support getting and digginginto the transparency in the
(04:38):
higher education marketplace,opening the door to more
on-ramps, to a greatpost-secondary experience, not
restricting them.
So we're going to continue tolean in on these issues and I
hope you join us along the way.
And with that backdrop, pleaseonce again welcome Michael
Itzkwitz, president of the HEAgroup.
(04:59):
Michael, welcome back to theRant Podcast.
Hey, eli, how you doing?
I'm doing well.
It's great to have you back.
You are now a regular on theRant Podcast and, of course,
that's because you're doing alot of great work.
So thanks for being back withus and I know many people
already know you and know yourwork.
You head HEA Group, whichproduces a lot of great data, a
(05:23):
lot of great analysis group,which produces a lot of great
data, a lot of great analysis.
And for the purposes of ourwork with you at College Futures
, you've been doing a lot ofwork for us on highlighting
value, and this time incommunity colleges.
We'll talk about that report ina minute, but first let me just
ask you how you're doing andwhat's sort of keeping you up at
night these days and all thenews from Washington DC.
Wow, what's keeping me?
(05:43):
What's sort of keeping you upat night these days and all the
news from Washington DC?
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Wow, what's keeping me up in the morning is waking
up at six o'clock to take mykids back to school at two
separate schools.
So we are just figuring thatout, so I haven't had that much
time to think about stuff, butthere's a lot keeping me up.
But I think, like you, I'vebeen focused on a lot of
opportunities as well.
So great See some optimism andways to move forward, and that's
(06:10):
why we're here.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
That's why we're here Now.
One of the things that we'lltalk a little bit about as we
talk about the work that you'vebeen doing with Color Futures is
one of the headlines recently.
Among many is the recentlysigned into law reconciliation
bill and in that bill there is aframework for accountability
(06:34):
for higher ed institutions,particularly those institutions
that have access to Title IV.
A lot of talk about thatfederal framework, and we'll
talk about the way that wemeasure value, but what are your
initial thoughts about thefederal framework?
Did they get it right?
Do we still have work to do?
Speaker 2 (06:52):
I think, in terms of the accountability provision, it
is a step forward.
There's always room forimprovement.
But before this, you know, wekind of had something called the
cohort default rate, which wasput in place in the 1990s when I
was seven years old.
So perhaps it was time for anupdate and no one really filled
(07:12):
the cohort default rate.
It worked very well at the time.
We had 20% defaults that wentdown to single digits, and then
people kind of figured out howto game it, even though we see
these outcomes that aren't asstrong as we would like.
So the new accountabilityframework does move us forward
in terms of ensuring betteroutcomes for some institutions
(07:35):
and some programs I would saymost institutions and most
programs.
So specifically, it looks atassociate's degree programs or
bachelor's degree programs, andit ensures that students will
only be able to take out loansif they are making more than the
typical high school graduatewithin their state four years
(07:55):
after they graduate theinstitution.
It also goes a step further.
They look at graduate programs,which is kind of the first of
its kind, and they ensure thatstudents are going to be making
more than a bachelor's degreerecipient in their state within
a similar field of study.
So you know, these are bigthings, especially as students
are sort of questioning thevalue of higher education more
(08:18):
so than the past.
There were some omissions fromthe bill, specifically
certificate programs.
So you and I both know, youknow we see a need for
certificate programs.
When they work well, they canbe one of the fastest paths to
socioeconomic mobility andthat's great.
When students go to a place,they pay a certain amount, they
(08:40):
gain a skill, they enter theworkforce and off they go.
But they're also some of themost riskiest credentials.
So you know, like everything,some bright spots, some areas
for improvement, and here we are.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
And here we are, and here we are.
I agree with you that this is,I think, at least the right step
forward, not the last step, buta first step.
Just the fact that we'reactually talking about
implementing an accountabilityframework is a huge step,
because I think that's been oneof the missing pieces.
Many of us have been workingand supporting increased access
(09:16):
for more individuals,particularly low-income
individuals, ensuring thatthere's greater access and
capacity at our institutions,and we fueled that through Pell,
through access to reallyuncapped student loan amounts in
many cases, particularly at thegraduate level, but we didn't
(09:41):
think about the accountabilityfor the institutions, and I
think that is the next rightstep.
Now, exactly how we get there.
I think there's still a lot tobe discussed, and I think it's a
healthy discussion, but atleast we're on our way toward
greater accountability, our waytoward greater accountability.
So, speaking of accountability,you have partnered once again
with College Futures, this timetaking a close look at
(10:03):
California's two-year colleges,or community colleges, as well
as certificate-grantingutions,and the report is called Golden
Returns.
Our viewers can check it out onthe College Futures website at
collegefuturesorg.
You can easily get to thereport from the homepage.
(10:25):
So, michael, this is as opposedto the last report, which
created the California MobilityIndex and focused on four-year
institutions in California.
This focuses on two-yearinstitutions and
certificate-grantinginstitutions.
What are some of the biggestdifferences, before we get into
(10:46):
the results between the twostudies?
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Yeah.
So the study that we releasedin February this year was called
the California Mobility Index,and what we did is we looked at
four-year institutions.
So that's one of the maindifferences when looking at that
in comparison to our new GoldenReturns report for low and
(11:09):
moderate income students atthese institutions.
We ran a report and analysis afew years back at this point and
we saw that there were a lot ofinstitutions that provided a
really quick ROI in California,and some at the top of the list
were places like Stanford orother very selective
(11:30):
institutions.
But right next to their namewas another number and it was
the percentage of low andmoderate income students that
actually went to thoseinstitutions, and it was
oftentimes below 20%.
So we started thinking andtalking well, okay, if you're
one of the lucky and few of thefortunate to get in there,
you're going to have an amazingROI.
There's no doubt about that.
(11:51):
But it's these otherinstitutions that actually serve
a broad group of students,bring them in, lift them up and
leave them better off than theprevious generation.
So the California MobilityIndex looked at ROI, but then we
also incorporated thepercentage of Pell to think
about which schools are actuallyenrolling a broad group of
(12:12):
students and leaving them betterat home.
So you know that wasfascinating just to see the
response and the results that wegot on that.
Now, I guess, six or sevenmonths later, we know that so
many students have differentpathways, especially in
California, when it comes topost-secondary education.
So we wanted to look atcommunity and career colleges
(12:33):
across the state, specificallyfocusing on four-year
institutions, and within thisanalysis, you know we were able
to look at 327 of these acrossthe entire state.
We understand that a lot ofthese students that go to these
colleges typically go withindriving distance of where they
live or where they work.
(12:53):
So we thought it was criticalto think about a regional
perspective.
So we did break it up into 12different regions throughout the
state and we specificallylooked at ROI for these colleges
so that if you were a studentor wanted a better understanding
of which institutions areproviding a strong ROI within my
(13:14):
community, within where I live,who?
is increasing that.
Where can I get the best bangfor my educational bond?
Speaker 1 (13:21):
So, before we dive into the two-year, you mentioned
a name that has been stickingin my head the last couple of
weeks, which is Stanford, and Ithink this gives a really good
example of why we at CollegeFutures feel that this kind of
analysis is so important.
Stanford, as you mentioned, hasa really high ROI for the few
(13:43):
in the fortunate that attend butserve a really low percentage
of Pell eligible studentslow-income students as opposed
to some of the top performers inthat survey were in the Cal
State system, particularlyplaces like Cal State, la, which
serve a high number oflow-income students and have a
(14:03):
great return.
It strikes me because you maynot be following California news
these days but a place likeStanford is seriously thinking
about continuing its legacyadmissions, is seriously
thinking about bringing backadmissions exams like the SAT
and the ACT, which will onlyfurther reinforce the findings
(14:25):
that we have there.
So it's just amazing to me, andI think why this kind of
analysis is important right nowis for the public to truly
understand how its institutionsare serving the majority of
Californians, and the majorityof Californians are low to
(14:46):
moderate income Californians.
So we want to continue toprovide that transparency so
that people know the choicesthat they're making, to provide
that transparency so that peopleknow the choices that they're
making.
Now let's jump into the twoyears.
As opposed to the four-yearinstitutions, there's a lot less
variety in terms of the kindsof populations that these
institutions are serving.
By and large, theseinstitutions are serving a wide
(15:09):
swath of low to moderate incomelearners, and so, as you
mentioned, the analysis that youdid was by region.
California is a big state.
We broke it down by regions,but we had some really
interesting results from topperformers.
In the Bay Area, for example,skyline College came out number
(15:29):
one in this analysis statewide.
But we also saw some reallystrong performers in the San
Diego region.
Three of the San Diegocommunity colleges came out in
the top five in that region.
And then, of course, we sawcolleges throughout the state
who had some really greatperformance and, of course, as I
(15:50):
said, our viewers can check outthe full analysis at
collegefuturesorg.
But we also had twohigh-performing for-profits
Unitech.
What do you see as the mainsimilarities of these top
performers that came out in youranalysis?
Speaker 2 (16:11):
When we were thinking about the study, we wanted to
include every option where wehad, because students are
considering all of these options.
So that's public institutions,that's private, nonprofit
institutions, that's for-profitinstitutions.
I think there are 121 publicinstitutions within the state
that we looked at and most ofthem are actually private.
(16:34):
They're private, nonprofit,private for-profit.
We covered 1.2 millionundergraduate students within
the entire study and theydiffered very much by region.
To your point.
I mean, there are some regionswhere they're very densely
populated and therefore theyhave more options for students
to consider.
(16:54):
Los Angeles region 87 options.
That's a tremendous amount ofoptions depending on where you
live.
Other areas only two options,only one option.
So that might be the onlychoice that students can
consider.
So what we saw is that withinthese economic regions, there's
a wide disparity in terms of theoutcomes that students can get
(17:17):
for one of these investments oftime and money that's supposed
to lead them to a better life.
So, like many other of ouranalyses, when we're looking at
the data, we just see howcritical it is that we lead
students to make the right firststep.
That can have a tremendousimpact on their trajectory.
And ultimately, we want a morecompetitive California workforce
(17:39):
.
We want a more competitiveAmerican workforce and we also
know that so many jobs are goingto require some sort of
post-secondary education Evenwithin the next five years.
I think it's over 70%, so it'sjust really critical to get this
information in the hands ofstudents and parents as they're
considering these options.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Well, we certainly agree with that.
Now, this analysis, as youmentioned, is about time and
money.
It's really strictly a returnon investment.
Look, can you break down themethodology that you used here
in this analysis?
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Yeah, so, like you said, we generally know students
do come from all over the place, but they're typically low and
moderate income students whopopulate these institutions.
But we wanted them to have agood sense of how much they're
paying and what kind of returnare they going to get on their
investment.
So first we looked at somethingcalled net paying and what kind
(18:36):
of return are they going to geton their investment.
So first we looked at somethingcalled net cost and that's
generally how much students arepaying out of pocket.
After all, grants andscholarships are deducted, this
could be a Cal Grant, this couldbe a Pell Grant.
It takes that into account andsays how much left over do I
have to pay, whether that's yourpersonal finances or through
federal loans that many have tofinance their education and or
(18:56):
living expenses through.
But then how much more are youmaking by attending an
institution in the first place?
That's something that we callan earnings premium and
specifically we looked at howmuch students are making at the
college 10 years after they'veenrolled, in comparison to the
typical high school graduate inCalifornia who is aged between
(19:21):
25 and 34 years old, and we cansee through census data, those
students, that comparison groupof high school graduates.
They make about $32,400 a year.
So you have to make more thanthat and everyone expects to
make more than that if they goand attend a post-secondary
institution.
So, just as an example, oneschool we looked at I think the
(19:43):
largest community college inCalifornia, american River
College.
It costs about $9,200 to get adegree within two years.
If you finished in the year is$4,600 a year, something like
that.
But we can also see thatstudents who attend that college
earn about $7,500 more.
So in order to recoup those$9,200 in out-of-pocket costs,
(20:07):
if you're making $7,200 or so,it's going to take you about 1.2
years.
So that's how we evaluated allof these institutions.
That's based off of how muchstudents pay relative to the
additional earnings they get,and we're able to have a good
understanding of how long ittakes them to recoup those costs
.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Now, given the new federal framework that we will
be talking more about in thecoming months, how does this
kind of analysis compare to thekind of analysis that the
federal government will use tojudge whether a program of study
is creating enough value toqualify for access to the
(20:54):
student loan program?
Speaker 2 (20:55):
So we've been working on this for a while now, before
that bill was signed into law,and it uses very similar metrics
and I think that that can bevery informative to the field,
as they're being proactive tomake sure that their programs
are performing the way that theywant them to and ensuring that
(21:17):
their students, their graduates,are earning more than that
threshold which we use and isthe same actually in the new
federal law.
Our comparison for high schoolstudents, high school graduates,
within the state that theinstitution is located, age
between 25 and 34 years old, weuse data from the federal
(21:38):
government through theDepartment of Education.
That's what they use.
That's $32,400 in California.
So in the big, the great bigbill, or whatever it is,
officially it's the sameDifferent names depending on
where you're coming from, right,yeah?
But it's written the same.
You know, it's this comparisongroup that was written by, I
(22:00):
think, mostly Republicansenators and then passed through
the House Right, and it'ssomething that's generally
agreed upon.
I mean, this is prettybipartisan in nature in terms of
ensuring good outcomes forstudents and taxpayers alike.
So I think that this is, again,you know, the beginning of a
conversation which institutions,policymakers, systems can use
(22:21):
as a helpful starting point.
You know the analysis that weput out and then, of course,
they have to start lookinginternally at their programs and
looking at the outcomes for alldifferent kinds of students in
all different kinds of programs.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
I agree.
I think it is an excellent toolfor institutional leaders to
begin to look at their ownprograms.
Look at this analysis givesthem a bit of a foreshadowing of
how they will be measured inthe future.
Now, one of the things that youmentioned that's missing from
the federal framework arecertificates.
So the federal framework wouldnot look at certificate-granting
(22:59):
institutions in the same way wedid in this report.
Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Yeah, I mean it's programmatic in the federal bill
, so our analysis isspecifically focused on
institutions how well theseinstitutions perform, regardless
of which program that they'rein form, regardless of which
program that they're in.
We can see so many institutionscommunity colleges and private
(23:25):
colleges alike now focusing alot on certificate programs.
So if they offered acertificate program, they would
be exempt from ensuring thoseoutcomes that are present within
the federal bill and federalstatute.
If they offer associate'sdegree programs, which many have
a mix nowadays, specificallycommunity colleges then they
(23:49):
would be held accountable andhave to ensure that those
students are at least earningthat.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Well, particularly at a time when the federal
government is opening theaperture to short-term Pell and
other certificate-type programsof study, I'm sure that the call
for more accountability andtransparency in certificates
will ramp up.
That's certainly something thatwe would support at College
Futures.
So we'll see where this allgoes, but I think this is again
(24:20):
a great analysis forinstitutions in California to
begin looking at their programsof study.
And while we're talking a lotabout accountability, I mean the
issue here as well istransparency and more and better
information for the consumer,the learner, the learner and
their family, so that whenthey're making choices, they
(24:41):
have better information on whichprograms of study will lead to
the kind of outcome that they'rehoping to see.
And let's be frank, 99% ofpeople entering these
institutions or these programsof study have something at the
top of their head which isimproving their economic
(25:01):
stability, improving theireconomic outcome, and we, as
educators, that's what we sell.
So we broke this down by region.
Why is it important that welook at this analysis by region?
I know you mentioned oneexample, which is most students
go to a community college or acertificate-granting institution
(25:24):
within driving range or withina bus route of their home.
What are some of the otherreasons that you found is
important to break this down byregion.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
I think it was a TICA study a while back and it
showed the average distance thatstudents travel to get to
college is 17 miles Two-thirdsof students travel within 50
miles of their house.
So that's number one.
Number two California is like awhole country within itself.
(25:54):
It's very different.
There's different spots,there's different opportunities,
there's different kinds ofindustry.
So it makes a lot of sense tothink about regionality because
it can have different costs ofliving.
It's going to cost very youknow, a very different amount in
one area in comparison to SanFrancisco, where no one can.
(26:14):
So you know, we had to thinkabout this and take these things
into account and that was oneof the main considerations.
And you know, again, we lookedat our friends, calcompetes,
their regional lab.
So we kind of took the lead onthat as an example of how we
could break this down regional.
And this was a first step andyou know we've gotten a lot of
(26:36):
great feedback since then.
You know people are thinkingabout this, people are talking
about it, they're thinking aboutother ways to measure ROI and
student performance.
So you know, I would say thatthis is exactly what we wanted.
I'm not the smartest person inthe world, but there are many
other smart people in the stateof California who are thinking
about this and you know it's soencouraging to think about where
(26:57):
we can go.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
Well, I agree and my team agrees.
That's exactly why we wanted toget this information out there.
Yes, we have a methodology thatwe partner with you to use and
very similar to the methodologythat folks in DC have been
thinking about and now trying toput into motion.
Even in the Bidenadministration, similar
(27:22):
methodology was being used tohighlight low-value programs.
So this isn't anything new thatyou've done.
We've just really tightened thelens and focused it on
California institutions.
Now, you mentioned a lot ofpeople are talking about this.
Certainly, I've heard a lot ofinternal chatter here in
California.
I've heard from my good friendsin states like Arizona and
(27:44):
others about some of theshortcomings, and so we welcome
that conversation.
Are there shortcomings?
Yes, I'm sure that there are,but that's why we want to force
this conversation.
We want states to really thinkabout how to better measure.
What kind of data do we need todo a better job of measuring?
Because certainly, as somebodywho was born and raised in
(28:05):
California, there is a widevariety of access to good paying
jobs available, depending onthe kind of career pathway you
take, than, say, the InlandEmpire or the Imperial Valley.
So part of this analysis alsohighlights the importance of
(28:30):
aligning with local workforce,the importance of institutions
working with employers, withother organizations in the
region.
I think the fact that three SanDiego community colleges showed
good results is a testament tothe work that they've been doing
in San Diego to align theworkforce for many, many, many
(28:51):
years.
So how do you see some of theworkforce issues or the
availability of jobs in a regionplaying into the outcomes that
we're seeing?
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Yeah, I love that.
I mean so.
Through Georgetown Center forEducation and Workforce, we can
see that there's a hugemisalignment between the
credentials that are beingawarded relative to the jobs
that will be available.
So it's sort of a wake-up callat this point.
But we also are an opportunityto think about that a little
(29:23):
deeper and I'm excited by theconversations I've heard about
these next steps.
You know, just as an example,there are 87 institutions,
community and career colleges inLos Angeles.
This was at an institutionlevel.
This analysis no-transcript.
(30:06):
So I've heard so many leaderstalking about this and about
that next step.
How do we get to that next step?
How do we think about alignment?
There are so many otherbenefits of colleges that we all
realize and recognize Morelikely to vote, more healthy,
more happy, so many things.
But if students are makingenough to make ends meet, how
(30:28):
would we expect them to becivically engaged when they
don't have time?
They're working two jobs.
It's just not going to happen.
How are we going to expect themto be healthy?
How are we going to expect themto be as happy as we want them?
So this is really a minimumthreshold that we're talking
about here, and so many otherfolks are way beyond that.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
It is a minimum threshold but, as you said, you
know our focus in this analysis,as well as the mobility index
at College Futures, our focus ison those underserved learners
in California college futures.
Our focus is on thoseunderserved learners in
California, and this is thepopulation of learners that is
absolutely struggling in thiseconomy, in the workforce, and
(31:09):
our institutions need to bethere to do a much better job of
helping lift them up.
Because, as you said, it'sreally hard to participate in
civic life, to stay healthy, tobe a participant in democracy,
if you're struggling to makeends meet, if you can't find a
place to live, and it's nosurprise that this frustration
(31:34):
that people feel leads to beingattracted to a more populous
message from politicians.
So I think if we put a tighterlens on this, shine a brighter
light on this, in addition toother important outcomes like
completion, like persistence,like access, this has to be one
(31:55):
on the same playing field and Ireally love the way that one of
our college presidents hasreacted, dr Keith Curry from
Compton College.
His institution wasn't one ofthe top performers, it's sort of
in the middle of the pack ornear the bottom third of the
pack, but he took this as a callto action, really thinking
(32:16):
about how he works with hisacademic leaders, his student
success leaders, thinking abouthow to dig into their programs
of study and using this in apositive way, not in a way to
cast dispersions on theinstitution or its leadership,
but to actually use this as arallying call.
(32:37):
So I hope more leaders thinkabout it that way, to actually
use this as a rallying call.
So I hope more leaders thinkabout it that way.
Now let me ask you one lastquestion as we begin to wrap up.
A lot of states are working toimprove career connections.
Workforce connections createmore value from their
institutions.
Everywhere, from Texas toKentucky to Alabama, state after
(32:59):
state is really thinking abouthow does it use data to improve
the transparency, to improveoutcomes.
California is in that same boatwith the cradle to career data
system that it recently launched.
What advice do you have forresearchers in this space or
institutional leaders in thisspace hoping to improve on this
(33:23):
kind of analysis?
What additional data do youthink they need?
Speaker 2 (33:26):
Yeah, at this point, my advice would be don't let the
perfect be the enemy of thegood.
You know, you were talking about.
Well, our study could beimproved upon.
Like I wish, I was in theshower and I said I just found
the best way to evaluateinstitutions.
That's the answer.
And if you work through thisdata like, you know that there
are so many limitations, but youalso can get to a point where
(33:50):
it's extremely action, andthat's where we ended up.
So I would love to see moreclear data, more understandable
data for people that aren'tacademics, for people that are
academics, for people that areresearchers, so that if you're a
college president who's dealingwith a hundred issues, you can
have information in front ofyour face and at least begin the
(34:10):
conversation.
So I would love to see moreclear and accessible information
throughout states and withinindividual regions, throughout
those states.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Well, I hope for the same.
I think this is a great firststep forward.
We here in California want tocontinue to build on this.
The data that you use forgolden returns is available to
the public.
If there are better ways tolook at this data, then we are
certainly open to thosesuggestions.
But in the meantime, pleasetake the time to take a look at
the Golden Returns report andthe analysis behind it.
(34:51):
So, michael, once again, thankyou for partnering with College
Futures on this report.
Thank you for shining a lighton the data and helping us see
return on investment in a waythat we really hadn't focused on
it before.
And thank you for being on theRant podcast.
Once again, it's a pleasure.
(35:11):
Thank you, eli.
All right, you've been listeningto my conversation with Michael
Litzkowitz.
He heads the HEA group, whichpartnered with College Futures
to publish a report calledGolden Returns.
You can access the report atcollegefuturesorg.
I'll put the link to thewebsite in the notes section of
(35:32):
the podcast.
If you're watching us onYouTube, please hit subscribe.
Continue to follow us.
And if you're listening to uson your audio podcast, continue
to follow us on your favoritepodcast platform.
Thanks for joining us,everybody, and we will see you
all 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.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.