弯曲曲线:与毕业率相关的制度因素

IF 1.7 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Policy Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1057/s41307-023-00304-5
Juliana de Castro Galvao, Frederick Tucker, Paul Attewell
{"title":"弯曲曲线:与毕业率相关的制度因素","authors":"Juliana de Castro Galvao, Frederick Tucker, Paul Attewell","doi":"10.1057/s41307-023-00304-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For decades, educators and policy makers have decried low graduation rates at U.S. colleges, advocating policies and making investments to improve graduation. We analyze a decade of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data for four-year colleges to investigate how much institutions have improved their graduation rates from 2008 through 2018, once controlling for institutional and student body characteristics. We find substantial improvement to graduation rates at public colleges, modest improvement at private not-for-profits, and a decline in graduation at the for-profit sector. We then investigate whether improvements to graduate rates are associated with variation in student-body composition, selectivity, and institutional expenditures, using pooled cross-sectional, Prais-Winsten, and college fixed effect models. We find that most between-college variation in graduation rates over time reflects variation in the composition of a college's student body and in instructional expenditures. Our Bending the Curve metric utilizes the cross-sectional models to calculate predicted graduation rates for each college and determines how much they exceeded or failed to meet expectations. Unadjusted graduation measures, such as IPEDS' rates that fail to adjust for these compositional factors, are poor indicators of institutional effectiveness and can mislead stakeholders who use them as an indicator of college performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":47327,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"278-302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737589/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bending the Curve: Institutional Factors Associated with Graduation Rates.\",\"authors\":\"Juliana de Castro Galvao, Frederick Tucker, Paul Attewell\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41307-023-00304-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>For decades, educators and policy makers have decried low graduation rates at U.S. colleges, advocating policies and making investments to improve graduation. We analyze a decade of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data for four-year colleges to investigate how much institutions have improved their graduation rates from 2008 through 2018, once controlling for institutional and student body characteristics. We find substantial improvement to graduation rates at public colleges, modest improvement at private not-for-profits, and a decline in graduation at the for-profit sector. We then investigate whether improvements to graduate rates are associated with variation in student-body composition, selectivity, and institutional expenditures, using pooled cross-sectional, Prais-Winsten, and college fixed effect models. We find that most between-college variation in graduation rates over time reflects variation in the composition of a college's student body and in instructional expenditures. Our Bending the Curve metric utilizes the cross-sectional models to calculate predicted graduation rates for each college and determines how much they exceeded or failed to meet expectations. Unadjusted graduation measures, such as IPEDS' rates that fail to adjust for these compositional factors, are poor indicators of institutional effectiveness and can mislead stakeholders who use them as an indicator of college performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Higher Education Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"278-302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737589/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Higher Education Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00304-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-023-00304-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年来,教育工作者和政策制定者一直在谴责美国大学的低毕业率,主张制定政策并进行投资以提高毕业率。我们分析了十年来四年制大学综合高等教育数据系统(IPEDS)的数据,在控制了院校和学生群体特征后,调查了2008年至2018年四年制大学的毕业率提高了多少。我们发现公立大学的毕业率有了实质性的提高,私立非营利大学的毕业率略有提高,而营利性大学的毕业率有所下降。然后,我们使用汇总横截面模型、Prais-Winsten模型和大学固定效应模型,调查毕业率的提高是否与学生组成、选择性和机构支出的变化有关。我们发现,随着时间的推移,大学之间毕业率的差异反映了大学学生组成和教学支出的差异。我们的弯曲曲线指标利用横截面模型来计算每所大学的预测毕业率,并确定他们超过或未能达到预期的程度。未调整的毕业指标,如IPEDS的毕业率,未能调整这些构成因素,是制度有效性的糟糕指标,可能会误导将其作为大学表现指标的利益相关者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Bending the Curve: Institutional Factors Associated with Graduation Rates.

For decades, educators and policy makers have decried low graduation rates at U.S. colleges, advocating policies and making investments to improve graduation. We analyze a decade of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data for four-year colleges to investigate how much institutions have improved their graduation rates from 2008 through 2018, once controlling for institutional and student body characteristics. We find substantial improvement to graduation rates at public colleges, modest improvement at private not-for-profits, and a decline in graduation at the for-profit sector. We then investigate whether improvements to graduate rates are associated with variation in student-body composition, selectivity, and institutional expenditures, using pooled cross-sectional, Prais-Winsten, and college fixed effect models. We find that most between-college variation in graduation rates over time reflects variation in the composition of a college's student body and in instructional expenditures. Our Bending the Curve metric utilizes the cross-sectional models to calculate predicted graduation rates for each college and determines how much they exceeded or failed to meet expectations. Unadjusted graduation measures, such as IPEDS' rates that fail to adjust for these compositional factors, are poor indicators of institutional effectiveness and can mislead stakeholders who use them as an indicator of college performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Higher Education Policy is an international peer-reviewed and SSCI-indexed academic journal focusing on higher education policy in a broad sense. The journal considers submissions that discuss national and supra-national higher education policies and/or analyse their impacts on higher education institutions or the academic community: leadership, faculty, staff and students, but also considers papers that deal with governance and policy issues at the level of higher education institutions. Critical analyses, empirical investigations (either qualitative or quantitative), and theoretical-conceptual contributions are equally welcome, but for all submissions the requirement is that papers be embedded in the relevant academic literature and contribute to furthering our understanding of policy. The journal has a preference for papers that are written from a disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspective. In the past, contributors have relied on perspectives from public administration, political science, sociology, history, economics and law, but also from philosophy, psychology and anthropology. Articles devoted to systems of higher education that are less well-known or less often analysed are particularly welcome. Given the international scope of the journal, articles should be written for and be understood by an international audience, consisting of researchers in higher education, disciplinary researchers, and policy-makers, administrators, managers and practitioners in higher education. Contributions should not normally exceed 7,000 words (excluding references). Peer reviewAll submissions to the journal will undergo rigorous peer review (anonymous referees) after an initial editorial screening on quality and fit with the journal''s aims.Special issues The journal welcomes proposals for special issues. The journal archive contains several examples of special issues. Such proposals, to be sent to the editor, should set out the theme of the special issue and include the names of the (proposed) contributors and summaries of the envisaged contributions. Forum section Occasionally, the journal publishes contributions – in its Forum section – based on personal viewpoints and/or experiences with the intent to stimulate discussion and reflection, or to challenge established thinking in the field of higher education.
期刊最新文献
The Third Space in Higher Education: A Scoping Review A Question of (Academic) Honour? Motivations for Member Participation in Advisory Boards in the German Science System Women’s Leadership Dilemma: Why Ethiopian Women in Academia Prefer to Stay away from Decision-Making? Beyond the Bench: The Professional Identity of Research Management and Administration The ‘Problem’ of University-Industry Linkages: Insights from Australia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1