Category Archives: work and earnings

Being strategic about your degree matters

A new study shows why it’s important to be strategic in thinking about how to invest in college. “What’s It Worth” demonstrates just how critical the choice of undergraduate major is to a student’s potential earnings. As the report says:

“While everyone who attends college can expect a significant return on their investment, different undergraduate majors lead to markedly different careers—and significantly different wages.”

In one of the most extreme examples, for instance, the report finds that counseling psychology majors and education majors make median earnings of $42,000 per year, compared with $120,000 for petroleum engineering majors. To be fair, most psychology majors need to go on for a graduate degree, which boosts their income to $60,000 at the median. But still, that’s a big gap.

At the end of this post is the chart of median earnings by various majors.
These figures are not just for recent grads but for all people in the U.S. with a college degree (age 18-64).

There’s a lot of variation in median salaries by gender (women earn less in the same job) and race-ethnicity (black and Hispanics earn less in the same job). There’s also a lot of variation within a field. Take business, the most popular undergraduate degree (with fully one-fourth of all bachelor’s degrees).

The business major (BA only) with the lowest median earnings is hospitality management at $50,000, while the highest median is business economics, at $75,000. Actuarial science comes in next, at $68k, followed by management information systems, operations logistics and e-commerce, finance, accounting–all $60-65k. See the full list here. Further down the list is marketing (at $58k) and so on.

As a result of this variation, a median income for a business degree can vary widely, with the 25th percentile earning $40,000 and the 75th percentile earning $90,000 — a difference of $50,000.

As graduation nears, the humble humanities grads brace themselves for the onslaught: “What are you going to do with a philosophy degree?” Well, you can tell your grandma that you will likely earn $48,000.  But don’t stand next to the smug U.S. history major, who is going to pull in, at the median, $57,000. And tell your grandma that most humanities majors end up in some kind of educational or professional management position. Art history? You’ll likely end up in sales.
History majors more often end up in finance for some reason.

The report is fascinating to say the least. Mainly, it reminds us that being strategic in college is increasingly important as the cost continues to rise. Of course, picking a degree is not only about how much money you will make in the future. You have to like what you’re doing and have some aptitude for it, after all, or you’ll probably end up dropping out, or hating your job and returning to school for another try. And lord knows the country needs those caring people like teachers and social workers, and more art and culture in our lives. (I do find it interesting, however, that women predominate in those fields. Are men more practical, more money motivated, or do they still feel the pressure to be the major breadwinner?)

But this report is a good place to start for young adults who are thinking about that age-old question: what do I want to do with the rest of my life?

Source: "What It's Worth," Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce

Frugality is back, or is it?

In the early days of this stubborn recession, a favorite filler article in magazines and newspapers was the return of frugality. People were saving more, the articles cheered. We were cutting back, finding a new contentment in “less is more.” Pronouncements followed that we had collectively turned over a new leaf and were never, ever returning to our debt-ridden, profligate ways.

I had my doubts. A rule of thumb is that only 10% of those who try to change a habit or way of life (think dieting) actually make it stick. I figured we’d be back on our way ringing up another unneeded sweater or tank top (shoes are an entirely different matter) before the year was out. But then I started reading the transcripts of interviews we’re doing with 22-year-olds.

Of the 60 or so interviews I’ve read, not a one has credit card debt. Most have shunned credit cards in favor of debit cards, and if they do have a credit card, they pay it off every month. I’d wager that some are glossing over the truth on this question. It’s well-documented that people don’t tell the truth to interviewers about sensitive topics like sex or money. Debt is still a bit shameful, so I would suspect that some of those who claim they have no debt actually do.

The Survey of Consumer Finances reports that in 2009, 42.8% of households whose head is under age 35 had credit card debt. Our 22-year-olds are on the young end of that age scale and so have had less time or “adult” demands to use the credit card (like those trips to Home Depot). Therefore, a smaller share might have credit card debt. On the other hand, they’re young and still reckless, and are more likely to have racked up debt on pizza and beer and a trip to see a friend across the country. But my guess is that a smaller share–30% maybe?– of 22-year-olds has credit card debt than the overall number.

The more interesting trend in the SCF data is the sharp decline in credit card debt since 2007. And those under age 35 saw the sharpest declines among all age groups. In 2007, 50.6% of those under age 35 had credit card debt. By 2008, 42.8% did. That’s a sizable change.

The young people we interviewed are terrified of senseless debt, and especially of the damage too much debt can do to one’s credit report. As this young women said, “I’m terrified of bad credit, so I try not to have any debt at all. If I can’t afford it, I know where to cut off things. I know which things are luxuries. I know which things aren’t necessary. And most things in life aren’t necessary. We just think they are.”

They’re more cost-conscious for a reason, of course: college debt meets no job. A new study by the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers compares the employment prospects for 2010 college graduates with those graduating in 2006.  One striking finding, as my husband pointed out, is the starting salaries. The median starting wage for a young person with a BA is $27,000, down from $30,000 among those graduating in 2006. Not only is that a 10% penalty for starting work in a recession, but as Rex said, “$27,000 isn’t all that much more than I was making as a pharmacy technician in the 1980s!”

And Rex didn’t have college debt to contend with, which is on the rise, and he had health insurance. The average amount of college debt is now up to $23,000. (Of course, the payoff is still strong, even if weakened by the recession). One-fourth of 2010 grads took a job without health insurance just to have a job, compared with 14% in 2006.

So the most recent batch of college grads is fighting for a place in the job escalator, while worried about the looming $400-500 college debt payment that will kick in soon, not to mention the rising cost of gas and food and health insurance.  No wonder they’re rethinking that night out on the town or the new trench coat for spring.

But regardless of the recession, this is also a generation that is shunning the role of passive consumers and is concerned about leaving a smaller footprint. Perhaps it is this larger shift in attitudes that is also showing up in their shopping habits. When we ask them “are you a big shopper?” the majority say no. And they often contrast their habits with their parents’, who they frequently claim love nothing more than to shop and spend.  It sounds like the makings of a generational divide, except the scolds this time around will be the kids, tsk-tsking their parents’ latest purchase.

Time will tell if the youngest generation just hitting the path to adulthood will be frugal adults or if they’ll fall into the 90% group of reformers who fall off the wagon. Perhaps they’ll become, like this young woman, simply resigned to the debt.  ”I think that everyone’s in debt and that’s just how it is….I guess I’m more understanding of money issues that I would have been four years ago, that you can only do so much about it at this point.”

My sense, though, is that there is a sea-change underfoot in how we look at consumption, although in the end, it’s all relative. This generation came of age during a run of affluence and are accustomed to a higher standard of living to begin with. What they consider “cutting back” makes my mother, who grew up in the Depression, kick into lecture mode.  I doubt this generation will start washing out and saving their generic-brand “ziploc” bags anytime soon or consider Cool-Whip containers tupperware. And don’t get me started on my mother’s penchant for cheap toilet paper. But they might step back from the ledge of consumer insanity at least a little.

The beginnings of a DIY education movement?

Do I detect a movement underfoot? A lovely young woman named Weezie called me up–ok, skyped me (I’m verbing!)– a couple days ago to talk about alternative paths to college. As loyal readers know, I’ve been on that tear for awhile, asking why alternative paths for young people beyond four-year colleges are not more apparent. My focus has been on the large group of young people who are not the brainiacs or the kids like Weezie who have been cultivated from early on to succeed. Instead, I often focus my ramblings on the average kids, those with no burning desire to spend four more years in school.

But then Weezie called, and it made me think, hmm, maybe this argument should be expanded. After all, even the “wow” kids question how they fit, where they want to go, and how to get there.

Weezie started college in a small liberal arts school in California after a childhood of travel, exploration, and parents who, as far as I can gather, urged her (and created the opportunities for her) to think for herself and beyond herself.

When she got to college, it felt, she said, like they were babying her, that the campus was too insular–too many privileged kids roaming around in a solipsistic bubble. (I’m putting words in her mouth here, but I think she would agree.) She wanted more, but she didn’t know what that more was yet. So in a gutsy move in this world of “go to college or be prepared to fail miserably,” she resigned her library privileges and took a semester off to “figure it out.”

For Weezie, the power of people’s stories is what inspires her, so hoping to find a path through the trials and tribulations, victories and defeats of others, she began interviewing. Her site Eduventurist.org is a clearinghouse for those stories.  I feel like a total underachieving slouch reading these stories, I must say.

What struck me in a recent blog post about an amazing young man in Malawi who, unable to afford school, taught himself by renting books and ultimately built a windmill (without a how-to guide!) , was this gem:

If the system of education doesn’t work for you, or simply is not a possibility due to your circumstances, your education does not have to stop there. I think that sometimes we associate the words “schooling” and “education” as being the same things. We are always learning and getting an education, but we should be bringing that same drive and commitment to learning outside of a formal academic setting.

And with that, it struck me: Will this generation be the first to question the mad credentialing race, where a journalist now needs an MA to do a job that was once learned on the job; where an editor needs an English major from Brown; where a pipefitter needs a two-year degree from a tech school? One wonders how on earth we learned to do jobs before the “college for all” race was on??

Are young people stepping back from that arm’s race to get those ever-better, ever-more-elite degrees? This generation is leading a turn away from crass consumerisms to a do-it-yourself ethos, of brewing your own beer to butchering your own hog (gruesome fyi). They are flocking to Makers Faires to see the creations of tinkerers. They are embracing a smaller footprint and a less consumer-centric culture. AND, they have new tools.

At their fingertips are endless possibilities to learn, for free. Peer-to-peer university, for example, is up and running online, where groups self-assemble and design a curriculum on a topic they want to learn about. Essentially, it’s crowdsourcing a university.

When I sat in on a panel at the recent Digital Media and Learning conference, P2P folks explained that they rely on an open-source ethos to spark a grass-roots education movement. “You just show up and do it,” the panelist said. There’s no back room people organizing or monitoring. There’s no organization. It’s all “you.” 1200 people have since signed up for courses, from how to program Flash to the psychology of math.

I hope the little rumble of a “formal” education backlash will take shape and turn into a roar. We need to return to some kind of sanity about higher education. The question is, will the establishment recognize alternative forms of learning? My parents regularly pulled me out of classes when I was a kid to travel, believing that I could learn far more seeing the world than I could in a classroom. When did that thinking stop? Just askin’.

Landing “good” jobs requires more than just a degree

I’m reading a new book by Harry Holzer and colleagues called “Where Are All the Good Jobs Going?” and it reminds me of the importance of moving beyond the averages and big-picture portraits and look between the folds.

Holzer is a labor economist at Georgetown whom I talked with a few weeks ago. He is often the counterweight voice in discussions that claim the job sector is hollowing out in the middle, creating a lot of high-end jobs and a lot of low-end jobs with very little in between (think barbell). Holzer finds some of that, but not as much as others claim. In fact, he finds a growing group of middle-tier jobs that require less than a four-year degree but some kind of training after high school. In his book, he goes into detail about how jobs have changed, with an eye toward those with the least education and experience.

Holzer and his team use a novel set of data (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics) that categorizes workers by their education, work experience, race, gender, age, and whether one is an immigrant or native-born. They account for such intangibles as people skills, parents’ background, critical thinking skills, perseverance, and educational quality. They also are able to categorize a person based on whether the skill sets they have are valued in the workforce. A highly skilled blacksmith, for example, would be rated lower because we just don’t need that many blacksmiths.

On the other side of the supply and demand equation, they categorize firms by how well they pay (wages only, not benefits) and how progressive their human resource strategies are (such as whether they offer job training or career ladders). Then they examine the shifting fit between skills and wages. Doing this can tell us all sorts of things, like whether jobs for those with the least skills are disappearing and in what fields.

What did they find? Among other things, the areas that pay well that require some training after high school but not necessarily a BA have been growing, and include skilled crafts in construction (which Holzer believes will recover nicely after the recession), wholesale trade, as well as health care (nurses, technicians, and therapy assistants), administrative services, and public administration. Interestingly in manufacturing, those with the highest skills have hung onto the jobs and are well compensated for their skills, while those with more basic skills have lost jobs en masse, even more so in the recent recession. The industry, in other words, has shed its right-out-of-high-school jobs and are instead paying a wage premium to those with math and engineering skills that machinists or welders need in the new world of manufacturing.

Holzer also doesn’t discount the service sector, with some good retail jobs available, as well as service jobs in the financial services field. While most of the financial services jobs require more education, the field itself pays very well up and down the ranks. Low level clerical and mailroom jobs, in other words, pay well in these firms.

What I found interesting was the “between the folds” story of education and earnings capacity in chapter 2. Many with BAs and Master’s degrees do end up in a good position in the job market, but not everyone. For instance, about 20% of those with a professional (doctor, lawyer, engineer) or a doctoral degree still have earnings potential in the bottom two quintiles, as do about 30% of those with a BA. More than one-third of those with just a high school degree end up in the top two quintiles of pay premiums, as do more than one-fifth of high school dropouts. (Earnings capacity in this case is made up of in-demand skills, job experience, education, and other “good worker” attributes.)

Overall, up to 40% (!) of people are in lower or higher-paying jobs than their skills set and education along would predict. Wowza.

Thus, as they put it in the book,

While the level of educational attainment is certainly important–and has become more so over time–it is far from a perfect predictor of an individual’s long-term pay prospects. Variation in educational quality and cognitive, analytical, and communications skills accounts for large parts of the observed spread in pay…”

In other words, a four-year college degree (particularly one from an unknown or lower ranked university) is no guarantee of big earnings. It has to be backed up with personal drive and ambition, charm, and a classic work ethic as well as some good critical thinking skills and the ability to do some math.

Good workers tend to get good jobs. Period. I guess that’s not so surprising, but the bigger conversation that we regularly hear makes it sound that a BA is a golden key to a good job. It’s not. It certainly helps, but it has to be backed up with something more, especially today, in this highly, highly competitive workforce.

Given Richard Arum’s recent findings in “Academically Adrift” that colleges aren’t even imparting the critical thinking skills that jobs require, one wonders when the value of a BA will reach that tipping point where the average kid– the knuckleheads who don’t have that passion and drive that some of their peers possess in spades– should really question whether a BA is for him or her. Maybe getting some real work experience for a few years first, learning to say “yes boss” and to show up on time, would be a good strategy before applying to school. (Mary Quigley’s blog talks about the kinds of skills that get noticed on the job.)
Maybe looking to technical schools is a better option.

Not to discount the importance of the “marker” that a BA signals to employers, but if more kids  with average skills from an average four-year school are going to be stuck in mid-level, insecure jobs while they have to pay back $40,000 or more in college loans, it does at least beg the question: why not go the cheaper route at least at first?

Later in the week I’m talking with one young woman who is telling the stories of kids who are doing just that. Stay tuned. I’ll also dig more deeply into Holzer’s book and tell you what he thinks of how we can do a better job of ensuring young people get off on the right foot in the job market.

The betrayal of higher ed?

I’m back from four fantastic days with 20-somethings in Philadelphia, including freezing my tusch in line for an audition for MTV’s Real World, hanging with the waitresses at Winberie’s, a long talk with parents, a “guy” shopping trip (grab pants, pay for them, leave), Philly cheese steak, Rita’s water ice, and countless hours talking with Kelly (pseudonym) and David (pseudonym) about their lives, their struggles, and their futures. It was priceless. And I thank them.

I was shadowing Kelly and David for research on our new book, about how the recession is affecting this latest generation to enter to workforce. I came away from it alarmed, afraid, sometimes hopeful, and more often than not, flashing back to my own early 20s—-the confusion, the excitement, the despair, the exhilaration. I also came away from it increasingly alarmed at the betrayal of our higher education system. Just let me go on record here as saying I think we’re staring at a new bubble, and it’s called the student loan bubble.

David’s story may not be typical, but it’s telling on many levels. David lives in a working class, borderline middle-class, neighborhood of Philadelphia. He grew up in a modest two-story home next door to his grandparents, who passed away a few years ago. His aunt lives down the street. He still hangs out with his high school friends, all of whom still live at home.

David is the kid on the football team who sits on the bench and who knows a lot of arcane trivia. He’s a huge movie buff, with a floor-to-ceiling bookcase of dvds in his childhood bedroom–a dark cave of wood paneling, piles of clothes, and clutter. His mom would love nothing more than to brighten up the room, but “David doesn’t like change.”

Overweight, nails bitten to the quick, he’s struggling to find his fit, at once sure of himself and yet wondering why he doesn’t get the call-back from the job interview when some of his other friends landed a desk job. He’s a “sucker for love,” as he puts it, a romantic who suffers from bouts of depression when things get overwhelming. He wants nothing more than to get on with life, find a 9 to 5 job and move out, get married and have a “baseball team” of kids, and the “white picket fence with the tire swing.”

Yet David isn’t moving out any time soon. He has $100,000 in college debt and two part-time jobs at minimum wage. He will soon owe $1,000 a month on those loans by his estimation. He earns about that much each month he told me over coffee at Starbucks the second morning. He also told me he is pinning his hopes on a bank teller position—one of the 200 jobs he’d applied for since graduation. The job would pay about $25,000 a year, which would allow him to start paying back the student loan and maybe move out.

David was an average kid in high school. He actually hated the whole affair and just phoned it in, doing the bare minimum to not flunk out. He wasn’t in any extra curriculars, and he didn’t talk to a guidance counselor but probably twice. He watched a lot of movies and stayed out of the way of his younger brother, who was rapidly becoming a serious juvenile delinquent.

And yet, he knew he’d go to college. “Every job you think of, you need a college degree,” he said. He’d originally wanted to go to a community college to get his grades up, but his dad, a laborer who removes asbestos in refineries, wanted him to go directly to a four-year school–the American Dream. David gathered the pamphlets he’d collected at a college fair and chose two that he thought he could get into with his low grades and that were far from home. He ultimately chose a private school in upstate New York–for $24,000 a year in tuition and $13,000 a year in room and board, with no financial aid, no scholarships, nothing. He chose the bank for his student loan based on the brochure the college handed out.

Four years later, he graduated with a BA in sports management in a town that is home to Wharton Business school, one of the best b-schools in the nation. He currently delivers pizzas for Domino’s for $7.25 an hour when he’s in the store and $5.25 when he’s delivering. He gets to keep part of the delivery charge and tips, but he pays for his own gas. If he works until 4a.m., he can clear $60-70 in tips in a night. He works three nights a week. His second part-time job is a check-out cashier at Kohl’s, scrambling to get 10 emails and 3 credit card applications every day for $7.50 an hour.

The debt weighs on him. He’s hoping for another six-month grace period where he will only pay on the interest in order to just save up a little bit more money. Then he hopes to consolidate and extend the loan out a few more years so the payments will be cut in half at least.  “Something like that,” he said.

We argued in Not Quite Adults that college pays, and it does–if you’re strategic about it, and if you graduate. Two big “ifs.” Studies like those we cite in the book calculate returns to education based on medians or averages. The median wage after college, the average cost of college, and so forth. That’s of course necessary and certainly an accurate portrayal of the typical kid, or the typical return. But the average can gloss over, ironically, the average kid’s story—stories like David’s, stories that are increasingly becoming the norm.

The question I have is why did David think college was the only route? In part, the promise of college is the American Dream for working-class parents like David’s. David’s dad, a second-generation laborer, did not want his son to follow in his footsteps. He had bigger dreams.”College” was where that dream took form. Yet, the ins and outs of college were a blur. As his mom said, “we were naive. We just sighed a big sigh of relief when he got in. But we’ve wised up now.”

Middle-class high schools like David’s are complicit in this dream. The weekly school newspaper proudly prints the future plans of all its seniors, and stresses that the majority are college-bound. Granted, the high school offered “third-tier” students options like voc-tech, but it came with a whiff of loser. As David said, “the voc-tech kids  were the kids who don’t do very well and this gives them something to do, some security in life.” Ironically, while standing in line for the MTV audition with Kim later in the week, she said when asked how many of her friends had jobs, “actually the only kids who have a decent job are the kids who went to trade school or cosmetology school.”

David came out of high school assuming that a paralegal needed a law degree and a x-ray tech needed a medical degree. Granted, he didn’t make very good use of his guidance counselor who probably would have disabused him of that notion, but his sense of things shows just how deeply ingrained this “college for all” mantra really is.

Colleges are complicit as well. They take in students like David without any compunction. They don’t have to worry about whether he graduates or not, or even whether he can afford it, because the spotlight is not on their graduation rates, only their enrollment rates.

So in the meantime, David lives at home, saddled with debt, and basically, as his mom put it, is just shoveling snow in a snowstorm. His parents, no stranger to financial strain, say they are happy to have him home. “We don’t mind doing this until he can get on his feet. We raised him to be independent, but it’s just not possible yet. I worry for him with that debt. That’s the mortgage on a fixer-upper around here. How can he move out with that?”

Indeed. As we sat talking, David flipped through the mail. A letter from the bank where he’d applied for the teller position was in the batch. He didn’t need to open it. He already knew. Rejected again.

Off to Philadelphia

I’m taking off the week to go to Philadelphia and hang out with 22-year-olds for my next book on how the recession is affecting this generation. So no blogs this week (I can hear the disappointment).

To be honest, I’m worried about this generation. I know that we’ve had recessions before, but there’s rumblings out there that this recession is different–it’s not just a cyclical recession, one that will bounce back and reabsorb all those laid-off workers. Some are saying we’re experiencing a “structural” shift–which leaves much deeper scars and a more lasting change. While our interviews with young people to date have uncovered their optimistic side (“I don’t think it’s true that we won’t do better than our parents,” they say adamantly; “If we just work hard, we’ll succeed.”), I’m not so sure their optimism will hold. I leave you with these thoughts for the week.

The first is from the responses to Matthew Klein’s op-ed in the New York Times last week on the plight of the young and jobless. A mother writes in response:

After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on our children’s educations, we have little to brag about. Many of our children are feeling desperate about their futures, and we are feeling as though we have failed them. As a social worker, I often work with clients who have seemingly insurmountable obstacles to employment. They are people without hope. I often find myself wondering, is this the future for my own children and their friends?

Or this one:

Many of my friends and I are unemployed. There is no pattern to indicate who will find a job. World-class education, enviable résumés, internships, volunteer work and excellent people skills offer no guarantees. Nor do teaching English abroad and seeking even higher education. I know because I have tried both.

The op-ed, our own interviews, and these responses to the op-ed make it clear:  there is a deep underlying anxiety about the future.

Bob Herbert captures this anxiety in his final column for the Times:

Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone….Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.

That future is what we will be exploring in this next book. So for now, it’s off to Philadelphia to spend some time with recent college grads and hear what they think, dream about, and hope for.

If you have your own worries or stories, add them to our book’s website at www.generation-r.org

Financial incentives help community college students stay in school

A new report finds that paying students to keep their grades up and stay in community college has the biggest effects among four different approaches. My mother would be appalled. I couldn’t even convince her to give me an allowance let alone pay me for good grades. But, after reading this report, I came away convinced.

Community colleges are the workhorse of the country’s higher education system. They are both a bridge into a four-year college and path into the workforce for millions. Yet far too many community college students never make it to graduation. Two-thirds drop out. That is a huge problem in today’s world.

According to the Center for Education and the Workforce, by 2018, the U.S. economy will create 22 million  jobs for workers with at least some education after high school. But if we don’t produce more college grads faster, 3 million jobs will go wanting. That is, we will be 3 million workers short of filling this capacity if we can’t steer the ship back on course.

That is one reason why MDRC, a nonprofit research group working to improve social policy, launched “Opening Doors” in 2003. The effort designed and test-drove several interventions to boost graduation rates at the nation’s community colleges. Seven years later, they have tallied the results of the varied experiments and summarized them in “Opening Doors to Student Success,” a wonderfully concise and cogent synthesis of the short- and long-term results.

But first, the demand: According to the Center’s recent report, “Help Wanted,” by 2018, nearly two-thirds of all jobs (both new and replacement jobs for those retiring) will require at least some college. By “some college,” they mean at least a certificate or an associate’s degree. The other one-third of jobs will require a high school degree.

This demand for more education is not new, of course. We have been on this escalator for some time now. Indeed, since 1973, according to the Center, “the American job machine nearly quadrupled the number of jobs available to people with at least some form of education beyond high school.” Much of this shift was spurred by the decline of manufacturing and the rise of the “knowledge” economy. The iPad is a good illustration of this shift. Today, the iPad is manufactured overseas, taking with it the blue collar jobs that required only a high school degree. But its marketing, design, financing, and dissemination happen here. And all those jobs require more education.

Yet, as MDRC notes in its brief, roughly two-thirds of students entering community college drop out, and at the four-year level, upwards of 40% fail to graduate in six years. We chronicled the same trend in Not Quite Adults. Far too many young people have no clear path through college, they lack good advice on what to take and how to navigate the college landscape, and they have only half-baked notions of what lays ahead as far as jobs go. As a result, they switch majors, take a smattering of coursework, and eventually wander right out the door.

On the community college end of things, too often young people are ill-prepared for college and get stuck in that “remedial” purgatory of “catch-up” courses for no credit.  Or, they are attempting to make up for past mistakes and are returning to school. But now they have other demands as well, including a job and kids. We need to do better if we are to increase the numbers of young people who are equipped to step into the jobs of the future.

MDRC took a first step in that quest with Opening Doors. The project helped community colleges design different interventions to keep young people in school: financial incentives, reforms in instructional practices, and two different forms of enhanced student services.

MDRC then evaluated the results using random assignment, and compared students in a control group with those who  received the services. This is one of the surest ways to test the effectiveness of a program.

The results show that financial incentives worked the best of the four. In this case, students were given $1,000 a semester to use in any way they wanted if they kept their GPA at the “C” level and enrolled at least half-time. The program ran for two semesters only. The stipend was in addition to any Pell Grants or other financial aid.

It worked. Students–who were all low-income– earned better grades, took more credits, and were more likely to attend full-time than students in the control group. Notably, the positive effects lasted for several more semesters after the stipend ended.

Instructional reforms had less effect than the stipends, and the effects didn’t last as long. The reforms focused on creating a “learning community” for vulnerable students. They took coordinated courses as a group and were offered enhanced counseling and tutoring, as well as a voucher for text books.

While they initially passed more courses, earned more credits, felt more connected to school, and moved through the remedial classes faster than those in the control group, the program didn’t help them stay in school in the long run.

Student services was the third type of intervention. Its intent was to provide more personalized and intensive assistance to prevent students from wandering off course or to help them overcome the inevitable hurdles that spring up in everyday life and interfere with school.

In one case, the students met twice a semester with a counselor, whose student load was reduced to be able to focus more energy on the students. Most of the students in this program were juggling family and jobs on the side. The enhanced counseling again had some early effects, but they tended to fade with time.

The MDRC brief ends on an encouraging note. All the programs tested, they note, had some positive effects on students. They were short-term interventions that targeted students facing the most substantial hurdles, and they had short-term positive effects. It makes one wonder if the services were scaled up and given serious resources how much long-term good they could do.

The most interesting result–and long-lasting–is that financial incentives work, probably no surprise to economists, who regularly argue–and prove– that money matters.

As Rachel Glennerster and Michael Kremer write in their post “Small Changes, Big Results,” the Mexican government in 1997 instituted a “conditional cash transfer” program, which paid poor families if they kept their children in school. “Enrollment of girls in secondary school increased by 14.8 percentage points. Similar programs have been rigorously evaluated in many countries around the world, and school enrollment has risen in every case.”

Or maybe it’s the “nudge” that makes it all just a little easier, not to mention more motivating, to stay on course. As the Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein, both behavioral economists and the authors of the popular book, “Nudge,” put it on their blog: “Financial incentives have a behavioral element to them…The basic point is that the context around the incentive (its size, when it’s delivered, how salient it is made) are all critical to its effectiveness.”

Whatever the incentive or support, it appears from MDRC’s findings that well-designed, intensive programs to help young people stay on course in school can and do work. Unfortunately in these cash-strapped times, it’s likely  that these services will be the first cut. That’s disappointing, and short-sighted, given the uphill road we face in meeting the demands of the future workforce.

Outrage. Enough is enough

Forgive the rant, but I am outraged. The Right has bamboozled the very people who will get screwed by their policies. They’re not looking out for Joe Sixpack. Yet there stands Joe, waving his Republican flag. Brilliant.

The Republicans are undermining the already-shrinking middle class with their pandering attacks on public sector unions, teachers, and others who still have the makings of middle-class security. They claim to want to balance the budget and “tighten government’s belt.” Really? Why? The ratio of GDP to debt was 110 (much higher than today) in the 1940s, and it dropped in the subsequent years even while the government spent money on things like education (GI Bill anyone?), pensions (Social Security), and infrastructure (interstate highways come to mind). Yet today we have to go into austerity mode (on the backs of the least secure citizens, mind you), why?  

We used to expand the pie for everyone. In the boom years following WWII, we were spending money, but we were also creating a solid middle class and investing in American workers. But that stopped in the 1980s, with Reagan, and it’s gone downhill ever since. We’ve lined the pockets of the wealthy and set up the system so the rewards flow up and concentrate at the very top. The game, my friends, is rigged. We’ve coddled the wealthy and kicked the little guy to the curb. Under Eisenhower–hardly a lefty–the income tax on top earners was 91%. Today, a top-25 hedge fund manager pays a tax rate of just 17% on his income. (loop holes). Hedge fund managers’ income–$1 billion each on average–compares to about $30,000 for a teacher’s salary. The teacher more than likely pays more in taxes than the hedge fund manager. And yet we rag on teachers. Incredible.

I for one am sick of this blatantly lopsided game the Republicans are playing. We need “good” jobs that pay decent wages. We need better roads and internet connections across the country. We need to invest, not divest, in education (and charter schools are not the answer). And all that takes some money. We can’t keep cutting and cutting and expect our middle class to do anything but whither up and blow away.

I feel helpless in this onslaught of slick messaging to an uninformed (shame on them) audience. I find myself back in familiar territory when I pick up the morning newspaper. What next, I think. What galling thing can the Republicans do now? This morning was eliminating the recyclable “green” forks in congressional dining halls because they weren’t “cost-effective.” If that isn’t blatantly political, I don’t know what is. After all, if cost-effectiveness were really the deciding factor, then let’s revisit the $35 billion defense contract to Boeing for a gas station in the sky for planes that no longer have a pressing strategic mission requiring such refueling.

Nearly 14 million Americans are still out of work–6 million of them have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. With every week they’re not working, they’re inching farther away from the beating heart of “normalcy.” For every week they’re unemployed, their resume moves farther down the pile. Before long, the routines that guide and shape our lives dissipate. Afternoon tv with its infomercials for DeVry and bankruptcy protection becomes the filler.  They slide into the forgotten fifth–those who, no longer working, lack an identity and become invisible to the rest of us.

Where is the outrage? Are we all just fatalistic? Do we really believe Republicans truly speaking for the little guy? Is anyone?

Young adults–the new “do-gooders”? As job offers dwindle, young adults flock to the public sector

In 2009, 16% more college grads worked for the federal government than the  year before, and 11% more worked for nonprofits, according to a recent article in the New York Times. Welcome to the recession. As the competition gets fierce, nonprofit groups rub their hands together in welcoming anticipation. Americorps has seen applications triple between 2008 and 2010. Teach For America had more than 46,000 applications in 2010, a 32% increase, according to the Times.

For some, this decision is a temporary side-step, a place to cool one’s heels and gain some work experience while riding out the recession. This generation is frequently tagged as apathetic–they don’t vote, they don’t keep up with politics, they’re not politically minded, despite the Obama “youth vote.” Only about one in five youth under 30 eligible to vote did so in the midterm elections.  They may be  quick to sign on to “lifestyle” causes–buying Tom’s shoes because the company gives a percentage of profits to charities, or joining online causes. However, as many have noted, these acts require little real action. It’s easy to click “like” to a Facebook cause. It’s harder to rally for change on the Capitol steps.

On the other hand, this generation grew up with volunteering. According to a recent analysis of high school seniors nationally, by 2005, about one-third of high school seniors had volunteered in their community, up from 21% in 1990.  Most faced service requirements in high school, and many have continued that volunteering habit in college. They have been hooked into the volunteering, community-organizing system at an impressionable age, and it might make life-long volunteers out of them. Indeed, the number of educated Millennials in public-service jobs has been rising since 2000.

Yet the kids coming in the doors of the nonprofit world are largely college-educated. It is that group that is also more likely to vote and be more involved in traditional forms of political participation, such as writing their congressperson, finds Amy Syversten and colleagues in their recent study, “Thirty-Year Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ Civic Engagement: A Story of Changing Participation and Educational Differences. They are also more hopeful about the future and are more trusting of government than their peers with plans to attend a two-year school or none at all. Disaffection among those with lower educational aspirations set in around 1994 and has only begun to bounce back lately (the data only go to 2006), leaving a large voting and civic participation gap between college-goers and those planning to attend a two-year school.

In some respects, then, the surge of college grads into the public sector is a double-edged sword. If the interview pool is increasingly made up of “the best and the brightest” who were, as the Times put it, increasingly forced by the absence of private-sector jobs “into lower-paying, if psychically rewarding, jobs,” then what chance do those with fewer educational credentials have in landing a job in the public sector? Yet that outcome is likely to only widen the already wide divide between the college elite and the more than two-thirds of young adults with only a two-year degree or less.

Whatever the outcome of this recession and the surge in public-sector work, it seems an opportune time for nonprofits to reach out to Millennials of all backgrounds, many of whom are living at home with their parents, trying to save money, and hoping someone will hire them. After all, they have the two ingredients nonprofits most need: youthful passion and time on their hands.

Generation stuck

I’ve been reading transcripts of our interviews with young people fresh out of college (graduated last spring), and I have to say, it’s both depressing and heartening. Probably the most prevalent feeling among this generation is that they’re stuck, their life is on hold until they can find a job. They truly want to embrace adulthood–be financially independent, live on their own, get on with life. But they can’t. How can they make any kind of move–whether that be out of their parents’ house or across the country–when they have no money coming in, no solid job prospects, but about $20,000 or more in student debt?

Or as one young person said, “It’s like a prolonged Indian summer of adolescence and I’m not thrilled about it.”

I hear the frequent complaints from older generations saying, yeah, but I lived on my own at age 19. It wasn’t easy, but I cut corners and didn’t expect a flat screen tv and a posh condo. True, but they (and I) didn’t have a monthly bill of $400-500 to pay back to State U. either. (And I have yet to hear the flat screen or posh condo request.)

So far I’ve read about a dozen or so interviews, and half of the young people are unemployed, and those that are employed are often not in the field they hoped to be in. Nationally, the unemployment rate for those 18-24 is about 15%.

They’re frustrated, and getting more so. As this young woman said,

A lot of times it just feels like I’m never gonna be able to find a job. It just feels like, you know, I have been like completely shut out. I mean, you know [pause] why didn’t I major in business? Why didn’t I go major in chemistry? It is scary ‘cause it’s like the longer that I am sitting at home, applying for jobs and not hearing back, or hearing back and then them saying, “No, we went with somebody else,” —it just  kind of wears you down. And it’s kind of like, well, is there any point in trying”

That’s the scary part of that sentence: “Is there any point in trying.” She did everything right. She got 5′s on her high school AP tests. She was in all the extracurriculars. She excelled in college. She was a planner–had her life mapped out: major in Russian, do a stint in the Peace Corps, apply at the State Department.

But then, life intervened. She realized, while on a semester abroad that she didn’t want to live that far away from home. So here she is now. Her plan is derailed, and she is left with a general liberal arts degree (albeit with honors), and no job offers. Yes, she should not have put all her eggs in one basket. But at any other time than right now, she would have landed on her feet. And if she’s struggling–3.7 GPA, honors courses, good work ethic–then you can imagine what havoc is being wreaked on those who are less on the ball.

And yet… they remain optimistic. They believe that if they just work hard enough, they’ll make it, eventually. They also believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that America is still the land of opportunity. Given the huge, and growing, gulf between rich and poor in this country, and the overall hollowing out of the middle class, it’s hard to square this belief. I chalk it up to youth.

But optimism for how long? Bob Herbert takes note of this in his column today. Drawing from the hundreds of heart-breaking letters that constituents in Vermont have sent their Congressman, Herbert chronicles the silent suffering of “the many of millions of Americans who, economically, are going down for the count.” Like the woman who wrote, “this is the first generation to leave our kids worse off than we were. How did this happen? What happened to the middle class? We did not buy boats or fancy cars. Why was it possible to change the economy…to a paper economy that disappeared?”

Or as another said, “All we want to do is work hard and pay our bills. We’re just not sure even that part of the American Dream is still possible anymore.”

There is in these letters a pervasive “sense of loss…in the possibilities of America,” Herbert writes. I’m reading these and the young adults’ stories with the backdrop of Wisconsin and the “race to the bottom” in wages and job security that is on display.  In a Machiavellian move, the governor of Wisconsin has pitted the middle class against itself such that now we hear  waitresses and day care workers and home health aides say: “I don’t have job security, I don’t get a living wage, why should they?”  In a sadly telling moment, this anger and accusation is the reverse of the peculiarly American credo that “I’m voting Republican because some day, I might be rich too.”

I’ve never understood that motivation until recently. My husband was telling me how the parking lot at his school was always full when he arrived so he had to park on the street, as did several fellow teachers. Each morning, after battling for a space, they walk into the school, past the principal and assistant principal’s assigned, primo parking spot.

“You’d think,” I said, “that to bolster moral, the principal might give up her spot and show some solidarity with her workers.” But then I realized, no one begrudges her that perk. They aren’t bitter because it’s a perk that everyone buys into–that if you work hard and rise to the top, you get your own parking space. It’s a sign that you played the game better, and won. The playing field was fair, and you outworked, outmaneuvered, and outchased that spot. Bully for you. You earned it. It’s those carrots that keep us all working and in line. That parking spot is the American Dream.

But in their desperation, the low-paid Wisconsin workers in precarious jobs have turned this quest on its head. They are shouting at their brethren who have managed, through unions, to secure some semblance of a middle class life. Wisconsin public workers are not paid outrageous sums. They are paid a middle-class wage. They have benefits. They have, gasp, a secure retirement (so far). That is what we all should have. Period. And yet, in a cruel reversal of the “I can someday get my own parking space” mindset, these angry words turn that sentiment around. The rallying cry is instead:  join me at the bottom. That’s truly scary. Is that the new American dream? Fighting for the scraps? What have we come to?