Old Dogs and New Tricks: What Can the UK Teach the US About

University Education?

Presentation to Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning

March 22, 2004

2

Publisher’s Note

These slides are from a seminar given 22 March 2004 at Glasgow Caledonian University, Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning.This seminar was facilitated by Thomas Weko. He “is senior analyst in higher education policy at the US General Accounting Office, a staff agency of the US Congress. In this capacity he works with the US House and Senate committees on education, undertaking at their request studies on a range of federal higher education policies, often student financial assistance. Prior to joining GAO Thomas served as the Associate Director for Policy at the Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board, where he studied a range of state higher education issues, including university admissions, widening participation, and distance education. Between 1988 and 1998 Thomas was a lecturer in politics and public policy at both public and private universities in the United States. He holds an Atlantic Fellowship, provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and administered by the British Council. He is hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute.”

instructional media + magic, inc.Washington, DC 19 December 2004

3

Background

Who cares about completion in the US, and why?

1. Politicians of both parties.

Audit paradigm: focus on the efficiency and accountability of HE institutions in the use of public funds

2. Advocates for low income populations.

Equity paradigm: can higher education mitigate social inequality?

4

By international standards, US rates of university completion are fairly low

Survival Rates for Tertiary Type A Programmes, 3-5 years in duration

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Japa

n

Turke

y

Irelan

dUK

Poland

Korea

Icelan

d

Spain

Austra

lia

Finlan

d

Czech

Rep

ublic

Austri

a

Avera

ge

Nethe

rland

s

Germ

any

Mex

ico

Denm

ark

Belgium US

Franc

eIta

ly

Est

imat

ed P

erce

nt

Co

mp

leti

ng

OECD, Education at a Glance, 2002, Table A2.2Survival=nmber of graduates /number of new entrants in the typcial year of entrance

5

And cannot simply be explained by wider entry, since there is no clear relationship between entry and completion

Rates of Initial Entry and Survival in Tertiary Education Programmes 3-5 Years in Length For 21 OECD Nations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Rate of Entry

Ra

te o

f S

urv

iva

l

US

UK

Y= -.1026x + 78.23p=.54

Source: OECD, Education At A Glance, 2002, Table C2.1 (Entry Rates) and Table A2.2 (Survival Rates)

Sweden

Italy

Finland

Ireland

Netherlands

Iceland

Japan

Czech Republic

6

Percent of US 12th-graders who earned more than 10 postsecondary credits and any credits from 4-year college who completed bachelor degree (or postgraduate credits), by socioeconomic quintile

42.1

56.758.2

64.5

80.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1st-20th percentile (low) 21st-40th percentile 41st-60th percentile 61st-80th percentile 81st-100th percentile (high)

Family Socioeconomic Quintile

Per

cen

t C

om

ple

tin

g

Source: Calculations based upon Table 3, Adelman, 2003

Completion is linked to socioeconomic status

7

Rates of university participation in UK rose sharply with little apparent increase in noncompletion

Rates of Participation and Noncompletion in UK Universities

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

83-84  84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95   95-96  96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01

Year

Per

cen

t Noncompletion Rate

Participation Rate

Participation Rate: the number of home domiciled young (under 21) initial entrants into full-time courses of higher education, expressed as a proportion of the averaged 18-19 year old-population of Great Britain

Noncompletion Rate: For 1983/4-1995/6 rate based upon a DfES comparsion of the number of starters and qualifiers; for 1996/97 and later based upon HEFCE projections applied to entering cohort of students.

8

Study Questions

1. Are rates of university completion in the UK truly higher than those in US?

2. If so, why?

3. What can the US learn from the UK to improve its performance? What might the UK learn from the US experience?

9

Boring but necessary: nomenclature and measurement

• University:

A higher education institution (HEI) authorized to confer a bachelor degree (in US a “four-year” college or a university)

• UK Completion:– Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) projects completion

rate for all full-time first (bachelor) degree students• For UK university system, 82 percent• For individual HEIs: 1 to 39 percent “neither completing a

degree nor transferring”

10

US completion: no single official measure.

•Six year institutional graduation rate for first-time full-time students.

•54 percent nationally. •Wide variation among institutions: CSU, Los Angeles (29), UC Berkeley (84), Harvard (97).

•Student completion rate. •Longitudinal national samples from National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) •Varies according to which university entrants are included in cohort, how early they are tracked, and for how long.

•By conventional definitions, 66-67 percent of US university students complete a bachelor’s degree – compared to UK rate of 82 percent.

11

Why differences in rates of university completion? Is it government policies towards completion?

US, federal: no mention in Higher Education Act; institutions must report six-year graduation rate.

US, state: limited student-level data, no benchmarks, and no significant link to funding

England: • benchmarked performance indicators for HEIs• press scrutiny, government scrutiny (NAO), and ministerial

pressure• completion-related funding

12

Within the higher education community, growing attention to noncompletion

Mentions of Dropout in Times Higher Education Supplement, 1995-2003

0

5

10

15

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f M

enti

on

s P

er Y

ear

Search by "dropout"+ UK+ HE

13

Trend in UK Noncompletion Rate for First-Time, First Degree Students, 1983/4 to 1999/2000

y = 0.1792x + 14.576

R2 = 0.4416

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

83-84  84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95   95-96  96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00

Year

Per

cen

t N

ot

Co

mp

leti

ng

Deg

ree

Completion-related funding introduced

Performance indicators introduced

14

Are US university students more likely to drop out because the returns to a university education are smaller than for graduates in the UK?

Private Internal Rate of Return to Tertiary Education, 1999-2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Canada Denmark France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Sweden UK US

Nation

Rat

e o

f R

etu

rn (

Per

cen

t)

Males

Females

Source: Table A14.3, Education At A Glance, 2003

15

Is it insufficient faculty, leading to queues for courses, insufficient faculty direction, and discouragement?

University Student/Staff Ratios: Australia, Canada, UK, and US (1999)

19

16.8 16.8

14.5

12.4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Australia Canada UK universities US public universities US private universities

Nation

FT

E S

tud

ents

/FT

E S

taff

16

Do students leave university due to privations of student life, or the demand of paid work? A comparison of paid work among fulltime

students shows:

Percent of Fulltime First Degree Students Working

46

73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent of Fulltime Students Working During Term

Perc

ent

UK, 1998-99

US, 1999-2000

Hours Worked Per Week, Fulltime First Degree Students in US and UK

11

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

UK, 1998-99 US, 1999-2000

Nation

Hour

s W

orke

d Pe

r Wee

k

17

A Typology: Elite and Mass Higher Education

Elite Entry• Limited and selective entry from secondary

system closely aligned to demands of university study;

• Sharp separation from other forms of post-compulsory education and training.

Mass Entry• Broad entry and highly variable selectively

• Secondary system not aligned to the demands of university study;

• Close links between university and other post-compulsory institutions.

Elite Progress• Homogeneous, motivated, and young

student body;

• Ecclesiastical study: continuous and full-time, to the exclusion of other activities;

• Unitary course, and pedagogical frame set by instructors.

Mass Progress• Entrants range widely in age, academic

preparation, motivation;

• Credit transfer and modularization make possible variable patterns of attendance; many are not exclusively students;

• Relatively open pedagogical frame marked by student choice

Outcomes

•High and common degree standard

•Low and common rates of “wastage”

Outcomes

•Highly variable degree standard

•Moderately high noncompletion, variable.

18

Entry to First Degree Study: Still An Elite System?

1. Selectivity (what share of age cohort continues from upper secondary academic course to university?)

The traditional path to university expanded: almost twice the share of the age cohort enters A-level study and obtains two A-level results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97Year

Per

cen

tag

e o

f ag

e g

rou

p

5 A*-Cs

2 or more A-levels

Advanced GNVQ

19

2. Exclusivity: What proportion university entrants take traditional path of upper secondary academic preparation for university?

Type of Qualification Among Entrants to Full-time First Degree Study in UK, 1999-2000

69%

10%

7%

5%

5%

4%

Upper secondary academic qualifications only (Alevel, Scottish higher, baccalaureate)

Other HE and professional qualifications (e.g.HNC, HND, BTEC)

Vocational qualifications at level 3 (e.g. GNVQ)

Combinations of upper secondary academic andvocational qualifications

Foundation and access

Other non-advanced/no formal qualification

20

3. Alignment: how closely joined is upper secondary education curriculum and assessment to the demands of university education?

• A-level originally “an entrance examination controlled by universities and geared to serve their needs.” Changes in 1980’s diminish university control over upper secondary curriculum and assessment.

• Example: in A-level maths, increased emphasis on statistics, diminished emphasis on calculus, resulting in mismatch between skill set of entrants and university curriculum in maths and engineering.

• 1990’s: introduction of diagnostic testing for students entering university in linear disciplines, e.g. maths, modern languages (Engineering Council, 2000.

Mike Tomlinson, (Review of 14-19 education) 2004:

It isn’t that young people at university aren’t able to do this—it’s not been an integral part of their programme and it has not been encouraged and supported by the way in which they are assessed. It’s not their fault, and it’s not the fault of their teachers.

21

What are the implications of changes in selectivity, exclusivity, and alignment for English universities?

1. Wider range of abilities among university entrants

2. Lower average level of readiness to enter course, and the emergence of a core of students who may need preparatory instruction before beginning course, i.e. remediation

See slides below…

22

Estimated probability of HE qualification, by ability, for highest income quintile of men (top) and lowest (bottom) for 1958 cohort (continuous line) and 1970 cohort (discontinuous line).

23

2. Emergence of a core of students who are not yet fully prepared for course upon entry to university

A. Programs • Entry into year 1 of course if summer-length module(s) successfully completed; • Bridging Programs for students entering from years 2 or 3 from HND or foundation

degree programs;• Remedial Instruction within year one, including lower level transition modules,

additional assessed modules, supplementary lectures, etc. (Engineering Council, 2000).

B. How many students? • >60 departments of Mathematics, Physics and Engineering give diagnostic tests in

mathematics to their new undergraduates (Engineering Council, 2000). Also common in other linear disciplines, e.g. modern languages.

• An estimated 15-20 percent on incoming students now assessed. If half subsequently undertake preparatory work, then 10-15 percent.

• No national data available from HESA: data not kept at modular level, and no consistent definition of these modules across institutions.

• “More”: ICM survey for THES, March 2003, 502 faculty respondents

24

ICM Survey, March 2003, "Students Are Better Prepared for Higher Education Than They Were Years Ago"

(502 academic staff in England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland)

5

12

3433

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Agree Strongly (4) Agree (3) Disagree Slightly (2) Disagree Strongly (1) Don't Know

Percent

Res

po

nse Total Percent

Old Universities

New Universities

25

And, entry to university education in the US, in comparison

1. No Alignment

• No distinct period of specialized study within “upper secondary” education. Students enter university, not course (England) or faculty (Scotland). Year one similar to upper secondary, with entry onto course in year two.

• Secondary curriculum and assessment unrelated to university entry and curriculum.

2. Low Exclusivity of Academic Secondary to University

• Students may enter from vocational secondary, or from two-year institutions. In some states nearly half of bachelor graduates begin at two-year institution (WA state, 41 percent of bachelor graduates have >40 cc credits).

3. No Common Standard of Selectivity or Preparation

• 2,000+ institutions with wide range of entry standards, open admissions to highly selective.

• Most students enter moderately selective institutions: CSU system (319,000 UG) admits top 1/3 of HS class. University of California system (154,000 UG) admits top 1/8th of HS class.

• Nationally, an average of 31 percent of university entrants do not have intermediate or advanced secondary training in maths, natural sciences, and modern languages.

26

Result: a significant proportion of students are not fully prepared for university at entry, the incidence of which varies sharply across

universities.

4. Remediation

--1/4 of US university entrants need some (one or more remedial modules)

--fewer, about 1/6 need significant remediation (i.e. reading, or more than two courses in maths or writing, shown to be associated with noncompletion).

--Rates vary sharply across institutions, from 0 to 75 percent of entrants requiring remediation.

• 27 percent of institutions do not provide remediation• CSU system: 59 percent of entrants “not proficient in all subjects”• CSU-LA, 74 percent need maths, 76 percent English

--Remediation driven not only by secondary preparation, but also needs of returning adults and those whose first language is not English.

27

University Entry in the US and England

2. Significant changes in entry to English universities since 1987—in selectivity, exclusiveness, and alignment--and in these respects it is more like other mass systems (US, Australia)

3. Nonetheless, compared to the US, the English university system appears to have:

• more consistent standards of entry, • much closer alignment to secondary education• somewhat narrower range of preparation• slightly higher average level of preparation

4. The UK’s higher rate of university completion is probably the result, in part, of these differences in academic preparation among entering students.

28

Student Progression: The Persistence of Elite Practice in England?

• Elite practice: expectation of continuous and full-time study (at institution and course of origin) to the exclusion of other activities, within pedagogical frame set by instructors.

• Since 1980’s, widespread adoption of semester, module, and credit in England.

• Some say that there has been a change in nomenclature, but no increase mobility, choice, or flexibility for learners, and no move away from ecclesiastical model (e.g. NIACE).

• Evidence (see below) supports critics.

29

Progression in US and UK remains sharply different, in spite of modularization and credits—”one institution, fixed and limited time”

UK: projected outcomes for fulltime first degree entrants; US actual outcomes bachelor degree graduates in BPS 96/01 cohort (col. 1-3) and NELS92/00 cohort (col. 4)

Interruptions From Fulltime and Continuous Study in Initial Institution and Course

26

23

34

39.7

5

23

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% transfer to another university % stopping out combination of FT and PTenrollment

change initial course/major

Per

cen

t

US

UK

30

Who are the US students who depart from the path of continuous and fulltime study?

Characteristics of US University Students: Exclusively Fulltime vs. Mixed/Part-time

20

11.2 11

22.4

24.4

8.6

23.5

34

27.8

34.636.4

10.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Median Age Married Percent with Dependent Hours Worked PerWeek

Parent High SchoolDiploma or Less

Reported Disability

Characteristic

Per

cen

t

Exclusively Fulltime Mixed or Part-time

31

What are the benefits of greater flexibility in progression? Wider access for non-traditional students

Characteristics of Bachelor Degree StudentsUS UK

25 and older 30.8 18.2Paid work during study 73 46Reported disability 7.7 4.8Has dependents 18 not availableMarried 14.8 not available

32

At the cost of lowering completion rates

• What might US completion rates be if its university system were organized like that of England, where:

– Students begin at university– Enter directly onto a three-year degree course– Study on a continuous and fulltime basis?

• National Educational Longitudinal Study, 1992-2000.

– Select students who exclusively attended a four-year institution– Who progressed far enough to enter their course (30 credits)– Who study on a fulltime and continuous basis (time to degree for those who did

not change course: 4.08 years, indicating fulltime and continuous study)

• Result: Completion rate: 83.5 percent

33

Do the benefits of increased access for non-traditional students outweigh the costs--given they are at greater risk

not to complete?

Benefits?

US: completion is best, but something is better than nothing. Supported by research on wage returns to schooling. Why? a culture of credit accumulation and modularization: study is divisible, not unitary

England: nothing is better than something. IFS study of men’s wages.

Why? No culture of credit and module; the “course" is unitary. Costs?

US: opportunity any willing student, any promise of success; substantial focus on those who might succeed but don’t attend

England: unrestricted entry and a second chance not native to university tradition or social democratic tradition.

34

What can we learn from one another?

For the US:

The US may have more to learn from Scotland than from England, owing to some important similarities and shared concerns (e.g. student progression from FE to HE).

The best opportunity for borrowing from England centres on HEFCE’s benchmarking of performance indicators and its completion-related funding methodology.

Changes to upper secondary education in England show that the alignment of upper secondary to university education plays an important role in students progressing to degree completion. Look to the recent experience in England, and to the working group on 14-19 education (Tomlinson).

35

For England? No answers, just questions.

1. Do politicians, journalists, and the public have an evidence-based picture of higher education in England that reflects the range of student experience within higher education—as opposed to fulltime honours degree education? And, even for honours degree students, can an information system that relies almost exclusively upon student record data provide a sufficient picture of their experience as students?

2. Can England succeed in widening participation, as opposed to increasing participation, while at the same time maintaining government policies and university practices that support an elite model of progression that is continuous, intensive, and exclusive of other obligations? Given the propensity of some students to finance their education from current earnings rather than borrowing, can a funding system that relies increasingly upon student financing remain wedded to a traditional model of study?

36

Questions, continued

3. Can the English universities that want to adapt to the needs of non-traditional students successfully do so within a policy framework and a larger university culture that is committed to the maintenance of an elite model of progression and to a unitary system of university education?

4. Is a unitary and (partially) elite system of university education possible? England’s unitary and elite system of university education was based upon: (1) a common unit of resource across institutions, coupled with no (or, flat) tuition fees and similar amenities across institutions (save Oxbridge); (2) an examination system that yielded common levels of ability and achievement among entering students; (3) a national pay scale and common appointment procedures; (4) a restrictive policy on university title; and (5) a common degree classification and standards supported by external examination and quality assurance (Trow, 1987).

How many of these conditions remain, or are likely to remain by the end of this decade?