The College Conundrum

8/8/2019 The College Conundrum

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-college-conundrum 1/19www.amer icanprogress .o rg

The College ConundrumWhy the Benefts o a College Education May Not Be So Clear,Especially to Men

John Schmitt and Heather Boushey December 2010


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-college-conundrum 2/19

The College ConundrumWhy the Benefts o a College Education MayNot Be So Clear, Especially to Men

John Schmitt and Heather Boushey December 2010



1 Introduction and summary

4 Why the underwhelming response, particularly for men? 4 The rising cost of college

5 The role of debt

6 Getting an incomplete

6 Long lead times

7 Is the market signal garbled?

8 Is employment polarization on the decline?

9 Ongoing occupational segregation

11 Policy implications

14 Endnotes

15 About the authors

Contents



1 C A ca P g | t C ll g C u d u

Introduction and summary

A leas since he early 1990s, he share o young people earning a our-year col-lege degree has no increased as quickly as many economis s would like. A highershare o young people oday have college degrees han a any poin in our na ion’shis ory, ye many economis s remain concerned ha he supply o college gradu-a es is no keeping pace wi h wha hey see as an accelera ed demand or he skills

augh a college. Tis college gap seems par icularly large or young men, who arenow subs an ially less likely han young women o earn a our-year college degree.

Economis s measure he accelera ed demand or higher skills by looking a hechange in wages o workers wi h di eren skills. Over he las hree decades, heearnings o college gradua es increased sharply rela ive o he earnings o workers wi h only a high school degree. Among 25- o 34-year-olds, or example, a collegegradua e earned 25 percen more han a high school gradua e a

he end o he 1970s, and by he la e 2000s, he pay premium orcollege gradua es in he same age range climbed o 60 percen .1

S andard economic heory would predic ha such a largeincrease in rela ive pay or college-educa ed workers would leadmore and more young people o s ar and nish college degrees.

Ye he share o all 25- o 34-year-olds wi h a our-year collegedegree or more changed litle in he 1980s, even as he nan-cial re urn o college increased sharply. (see Figure 1) Tis a

rajec ory or all 25- o 34-year-olds is he resul o coun erac ingrends or women and men. Over he 1980s, he college share

increased or women, even as he share o 25- o 34-year-old men wi h a college degree ell no iceably.

In he early 1990s, he overall college-atainmen ra e began orise as he college share or women accelera ed considerably and he share o college-educa ed men reversed course and rose

hrough mos o he decade. And in he 2000s, he overall col-

Figure 1

The gender gap in college

Share o 25-to-34 year-olds with a college

degree, 1979-2009

Source: Authors’ analysis o Center or Economic and Policy Research CuPopulation Survey Outgoing Rotation Group extract.

Share of all 25-34 year olds

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009

Male

Female

All




lege share con inued o grow. Women’s college atainmen con inued o rise a as eady ye slower pace han he la e 1990s, bu here was almos no change over

he decade in he share o 25- o 34-year-old men wi h a college degree.

Tese his orical rends presen economis s wi h wo college conundrums. Te

rs : Why haven’ young people responded o higher re urns o college by rushingo atend college? Te demand side o he marke is sending a clear price signalha here are much higher earnings or college-educa ed workers o be had upon

gradua ion, bu he supply side has responded only hal ingly. College comple ionra es are up, bu no very much. Te second conundrum: Why have men, who arereceiving he same signals as women, lagged par icularly ar behind?

Almos by de ni ion, increasing college comple ion involves geting s uden s hain he pas would no have atended college or who would have atended, bu nocomple ed college, o do so. o unders and why college comple ion has no risen

as as as economic models migh predic , we need o ocus on he s uden s whomigh , i condi ions were sligh ly di eren , atend college. Tese s uden s are wavering be ween going o a our-year college, atending communi y college, oren ering he labor orce immedia ely. Tey are on he ence or a varie y o reasons.Maybe hey did no have he highes grades in high school. Maybe hey have work or amily responsibili ies. Maybe hey eel ha hey canno a ord college.

Wha ever he case, or many o hese po en ial s uden s he mos relevan re er-ence poin may no be he experience o high iers or even he average collegegradua e, as economis s looking a he da a end o assume. Financial re urns

rom a college educa ion vary widely across gradua es, and he gap be ween hehighes and lowes paid gradua es increased somewha over he las hree decades.S uden s on he ence abou college may look more o he experience o recengradua es who are earning less han he average college gradua e.

Indeed, we nd ha or many young people, he economic case or atending col-lege may no be as clear cu as i appears based on he experience o he averagegradua e. For hose college gradua es a he middle and op o he pos collegepay scale, college in hindsigh looks like a sound inves men , bu no all gradua es

do his well. And a small bu impor an share o gradua es ac ually do no beterhan heir coun erpar s who le school a er high school—even be ore aking he

cos s o college in o accoun . In 2009, or example, our analysis o he CurrenPopula ion Survey Ou going Ro a ion Group ex rac nds ha among 25 o 34




year old men, one-in- ve (19.4 percen ) who had a college degree ac ually earnedless han he average male high school gradua e, as was also he case or one-in-seven women wi h a college degree (14.0 percen ).

Te priva e decision ha he wavering s uden makes no o atend college may

be ra ional or ha individual, bu i s ill may be ha we would be beter o as asocie y i s uden s on he ence ac ually wen o college. Bu o ge hese s uden so atend (and comple e) college, we have o make ha socially sensible deci-

sion work or individual s uden s as well. Te role or policy is o lower he cos(including he deb burden) and o raise he nancial bene s o college or heses uden s who are on he margin be ween college and work.

In his shor overview, we rs review some possible answers o hese wo puzzlesand hen discuss some implica ions or policy.2 A his s age, our explana ions are

en a ive and our policy discussion is in ended primarily o help ocus aten ion

on addressing he marke obs acles o increasing par icipa ion in pos secondary educa ion, among American males in par icular.




Why the underwhelming response,particularly for men?

Le ’s begin by assuming ha younger cohor s o bo h men and women see hemarke signal ha here is a growing demand or college-educa ed workers. Eveni ha is rue, a varie y o ac ors limi he abili y o recen high school gradua es oac quickly o respond o he changing na ure o labor demand. Te mos impor-

an o hese ac ors is probably he rise in college cos s and he composi ion o nancial aid packages.

Fur her, he sheer na ure o he lead ime on a college inves men means ha here will be a lag in he response o he marke signal, especially i s ruc ural ac ors—

or example, how colleges organize class schedules and nancial aid—assume hahe ypical s uden en ers college a age 18 and atends ull ime. So le ’s rs look

a hese hurdles.

The rising cost of college

One ac or ha is o en overlooked—even by economis s whogenerally obsess over prices—is ha a leas par o he rising

nancial re urns o college has been o se by subs an ial increasesin he cos o atending college. Be ween 1980 and 2010 hein a ion-adjus ed cos o college ui ion and ees rose as muchor more han he re urns o a college educa ion.3 (see Figure 2)No ably, he cos side o he ledger rose much as er in recen years or s uden s atending public, our-year ins i u ions, whichare more likely han priva e, our-year ins i u ions o atrac s u-den s wavering abou college atendance.

Te da a in he char re er o published ui ion and ees and don’include he e ec s o he increase in nancial aid over his period, which shi ed away rom gran s oward s uden loans.4 Financialaid applica ions and packages have also bo h become increas-

Figure 2

College costs outpace inflation yearafter year

The rising cost o college, 1980-2010

Source: The College Board, “Tuition and Fee and Room and Board Charges oAvailable at http://trends.collegeboard.org/college_pricing/report_fndings/ind

Private 4-year

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Ination-adjusted (1980=100%)

400%

300%

200%

100%

0%80-81 85-86 90-91 95-96 00-01 05-06




ingly complex, which makes i difcul or s uden s o apply or aid and ully unders and how much college will ul ima ely cos hem once hey accep aid.5 Even a er nancial aid, ob aining a college degree is subs an ially more expensivenow han i was 30 years ago, and young people deciding abou college ac or bo h

he expec ed re urns and he expec ed cos s in o heir decision.

The role of debt

One way ha s uden s and heir amilies cope wi h he rising cos o college ishrough borrowing. Among college seniors gradua ing in he 2007-08 academic year

who had aken ou s uden loans, he average cumula ive deb was $21,622,6 morehan double he average o $10,251 among hose gradua ing in 1986-1987.7 While

s uden loans make college possible or many, he increasing need o rely on debnancing or college may also de er some young people rom atending college.

Men also seem o be less willing han women o use deb o nance college, whichmay help o explain why hey’ve lagged behind women as deb has become anincreasingly impor an par o paying or college. Among hose gradua ing in2007-08, or example, 63.2 percen o women ook on s uden deb , compared o57.4 percen o men. Women who ook ou s uden loans were also more likely

han men o ake on large amoun s o deb . While 49.3 percen o women ook onmore han $19,000 o nance a college degree, only 44.7 percen o men ook on

ha much deb .8

Fur her, s uden s rom lower-income amilies ake on as much deb by gradua ion wi h a bachelor’s degree as do s uden s rom higher-income amilies.9 Tis indi-ca es a commi men among hese s uden s o geting a degree, bu i also indica eshow he combina ion o rising college cos s and he shi in he composi ion o s uden aid oward loans ra her han gran s increases he cos burden or s uden s

rom lower-income backgrounds.

Paren s may also be playing a role here. Tose paren s who bene ed rom a col-lege degree or saw o hers bene may be more willing o encourage children o

ake on deb or ake on deb hemselves o help pay or a child’s college educa ion.Bu hose paren s who did no ake on large deb (and older genera ions in general

ook on smaller deb loads), may be concerned abou he value o he inves men .




Getting an incomplete

Mos young people unders and ha a college degree will make a big di erence orheir u ure. As a resul , a majori y o recen high school gradua es do enroll (even-ually, i no immedia ely) in college.10 Many o hese s uden s, however, leave

be ore hey earn heir degree. Among s uden s who en ered college in 1998, orexample, only abou one- hird (34.5 percen ) gradua ed our years la er, jus overhal (51.5 percen ) gradua ed wi hin ve years, and only sligh ly more (56.4 per-cen ) a er six years.11

Men are bo h less likely o enroll in college and less likely o nish i hey’ves ar ed. In he same 1998 en ry cohor , or example, he six-year gradua ion ra e

or men was 53.1 percen , compared o 59.0 percen or women. One o he easi-es ways o increase he pool o college gradua es would be o ensure ha hoses uden s who already ook all he necessary s eps o atend college are able o n-

ish. Progress here depends on unders anding why s uden s, par icularly men, dropou in such high numbers.

Long lead times

One undamen al explana ion or he weak marke response is ha a our-yearcollege degree or an advanced degree involves subs an ial lead ime. Te group

ha was 25 o 34 years old in 1980 (jus as he re urns on a college degree s ar edo rise) ypically nished college be ween hree and 12 years earlier. Moreover, or

“li ecycle” reasons (including having children) rela ively ew people in ha 25- o34-year-old age group were in college nor would hey have considered re urning

o college a ha age—even as hey observed he rising nancial bene s o col-lege. As a resul , i we s ick wi h he curren model or college educa ion, increas-ing he supply o college gradua es in he U.S. economy is a long, slow process ha will primarily involve increasing he college atendance and comple ion ra es o young adul s in he 18- o 24-year-old range.

Figure 1 on page 4 does sugges , however, ha young people do respond o marke

signals. From he early 1990s, he share o 25- o 34-year-olds wi h a college degree began o rise. Tis is a group ha was “college age” in he 1980s when he nancialre urns on a college educa ion sho up. Te challenge, however, is ha he supply response has been rela ively modes and, or men, all bu disappeared in he2000s. I only he younges cohor s hear and respond o marke signals abou he




earnings advan age o a college degree, he overall share o collegegradua es in he work orce will only increase slowly.

Is the market signal garbled?

Economis s have made he case or he need or more collegegradua es based on he observa ion ha he gap be ween heearnings o he average college gradua e and he average highschool gradua e has widened considerably over he las hreedecades. Bu he experience o he average gradua e may no be he relevan re erence poin or he large pool o high schoolgradua es who have decided no o atend college. And his isprecisely he group where we need o increase college atendancei we’re going o increase he overall supply o college gradua es.

Figure 3 displays, separa ely or men and women, one measure o he re urns on a college educa ion or 25- o 34-year-old workers.

Te char shows he re urn or he average gradua e ( he cen erline in each panel), as well as or a rela ively low-paid gradua e( he 10 h percen ile gradua e, he botom line in each panel)and a rela ively well-paid gradua e ( he 90 h percen ile, he opline in each panel). Each line shows how much more each ypeo worker earns han heaveragehigh school educa ed worker(male or emale, as appropria e).

For bo h men and women, he average lines behave as econo-mis s have known or years. For men, be ween 1979 and 2009,

he di erence be ween wha he average college and he averagehigh school educa ed worker made almos ripled. For women,

he average college premium increased more han 70 percen .12

Bu Figure 3 also le s us look a he experience o gradua es whose earnings are above and below he average. Te rs impor-

an ea ure is ha , in any given year, he experience o collegegradua es varies widely. Well-paid gradua es ( hose in he 90 hpercen ile o he dis ribu ion) earn much more han high schoolgradua esand much more han he average college gradua e, oo.

Figure 3

The post-college pay gap

College-only wage premium, relative to a hschool graduate, at the 10th percentile, theaverage, and the 90th percentiles, among 234 year olds between 1979 and 2009

Source: Authors’ analysis o Center or Economic and Policy Research CuPopulation Survey Outgoing Rotation Group extract.

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20

90th percentile

10th percentileAverage

Real hourly wage (natural log)

150

100

50

0

-50

MEN

Real hourly wage (natural log)

150

100

50

0

-50

WOMEN




A second ea ure o college gradua e wage dis ribu ion is ha i has widenedsomewha over he las hree decades. Wage inequali y increased be ween collegeand high school gradua es, bu i also increasedwithincollege gradua es. In 1979,a op-earning male college gradua e made abou 70 percen more han a low-earning gradua e. By 2009, he gap was over 90 percen . For women, he same gap

wi hin college gradua es rose rom jus over 60 percen in 1979 o almos 90 per-cen in 2009.

A nal ea ure o he gure, and one ha is direc ly relevan o young people’sdecisions abou college, is ha an impor an por ion o college gradua es earnless

han he average or high school gradua es in he same age range. For bo h menand women, in every year since 1979, gradua es in he 10 h percen ile o he wagedis ribu ion earned less han he average high school gradua e. For men, low-earn-ing college gradua es consis en ly lagged ar her behind heir high school-only coun erpar s han low-earning women college gradua es did

Te increasingly unequal dis ribu ion o college-gradua e earnings sugges s hamany high school gradua es may no be geting a clear signal ha college is righ

or hem. Te nancial bene s o college have gone up more or gradua es ahe op han hey have a he botom, while he cos s o college have gone up or

s uden s across he board. Even a er hree decades o increasing re urns o a our- year college, an impor an share o college gradua es con inue o earn less han heaverage pay or someone wi h only a high school degree.

Is employment polarization on the decline?

Young people deciding on college in recen years may also be responding ochanges in he labor marke in he 2000s—changes ha have pushed agains helonger- erm rends demons ra ing he value o a college educa ion. Over he lasdecade or so, economis s documen ed a subs an ial “polariza ion” in employmen , wi h he economy increasingly genera ing jobs or workers a he high end and helow end o he skills dis ribu ion, while “hollowing ou ” he middle.13 ypically,

his research has ocused on changes in employmen demand over airly long ime

periods. Economis s David Au or a he Massachusets Ins i u e o echnology and Bos on Universi y’s David Dorn, or example, demons ra ed subs an ialemploymen polariza ion over he period 1980 o 2005.14




In more recen work, however, Au or has separa ely examined employmenchanges over hree di eren subperiods o he las hree decades.15 Wha is moss riking abou his new research is ha i appears o show ha polariza ion, par-

icularly he rising employmen share or workers a he op o he skills dis ribu-ion, appears o have aba ed, and or men may possibly even be on he decline.16

For he period 1999 o 2007, or example, he nds ha he only occupa ions inhe economy where employmen shares were on he rise were hose in abou he botom our h o he skills dis ribu ion. Occupa ions in he op hree- our hso he skills dis ribu ion—including hose a he op o he dis ribu ion, whichincreased sharply in he 1980s and 1990s—ei her los employmen share or only held heir own.17

Au or’s recen work also shows ha , over he longer period be ween 1979 and2007, he share o men wi h a college degree or more who ook jobs in low- andmedium-skilled occupa ions increased while heir share in high-skilled occu-

pa ions ell.18 Fla or even alling employmen grow h or high-skilled jobs orcollege gradua es over he las decade may be discouraging young people rominves ing in college. Jus as he average re urns o a college degree may obscure heexperience o gradua es a he botom and he op, comparing he presen wi h30 years ago may hide ac ors relevan o he educa ional decisions ha youngpeople are making oday.

Ongoing occupational segregation

Despi e signi can improvemen s in he 1970s and 1980s, he labor markeremains highly segrega ed along gender lines.19 Large shares o women, even highly educa ed women, are concen ra ed in wha are largely “ emale” occupa ions, whilemen are concen ra ed in largely “male” occupa ions. Even hough occupa ionalsegrega ion ends o rein orce he gender pay gap by channeling women in o lowerpaying occupa ions han men wi h similar skills, occupa ional segrega ion may also be crea ing employmen problems or college-educa ed men over he long erm.

Some o he high-skilled occupa ions where employer demand is expec ed o

grow mos , or example, in heal h and educa ion occupa ions, are s ill overwhelm-ingly jobs held by women.20 Te percep ion ha hese jobs are “women’s work”may s eer men away rom hese jobs or sociological reasons bu also because, allelse cons an , high concen ra ions o women workers in an occupa ion are associ-a ed wi h lower earnings.




In con ras , women may see a rising average re urn on a college educa ion dueo a rising demand in occupa ions ha hey radi ionally en er. Men, who do

no radi ionally en er hose elds, may no have he same evalua ion o heirlong- erm prospec s. Combined wi h Au or’s nding o college-educa ed menincreasingly en ering low- and middle-skill occupa ions, his may mean ha

young men deciding on college may no be seeing he same price signal haeconomis s see on average.




Policy implications

In general erms, i we wan o increase he share o college gradua es in heeconomy, we should pursue s ra egies ha :

• Lower he high school dropou ra e, especially or young men, because youngpeople won’ s ar college i hey can’ nish high school

• Encourage more high school gradua es o apply o college, especially men• Lower he “college dropou ” ra e, once again especially or men

Bu i only young people go o college, i will s ill ake decades o rans orm helabor marke rom op o botom. Tis reali y sugges s ha par o he s ra egy orimproving he skills o he labor orce mus ocus on he large share o workers who are already beyond he age where people ypically s udy ull ime oward apos secondary degree. A rela ed implica ion is ha here should be a premiumplaced on developing and ex ending educa ional op ions ha lead o na ionally recognized skills in less ime han he usual our-year college degree.21

An impor an barrier con inues o be he high cos o college. Even hough hepriva e re urns on a college educa ion increased subs an ially over he las hreedecades, so oo have he priva e cos s. Financial aid de rays some o hose increases, bu college remains subs an ially more expensive or s uden s and heir amilies

han was he case 30 years ago. While s uden loans allow many s uden s o earn acollege degree, a con inued reliance on deb may limi he abili y o expand collegeatendance much ur her.

Tis is especially he case among lower-income amilies— hose who curren ly have he lowes college atendance and comple ion ra es. Tey have aken advan-

age o various s uden loan programs, bu wi h more limi ed amily resourceshe same deb burdens weighs heavier on hese s uden s han on higher-incomeamilies. Te s rong emphasis on deb nancing may also discourage young men,

more han young women, rom applying or college. Te low gradua ion ra es aour-year college are likely rela ed o cos s, bu here may be more a work. A be -




er unders anding o why young people, especially young men, s ar bu don’ n-ish college could be an impor an way o increase he supply o college gradua es.

All o hese ac ors poin oward considering policies ha lower he up ron coso college as well as he pos college deb burden. Expansion o nondeb orms o

nancial aid are one obvious policy. Ano her concre e proposal, which has beendiscussed by bo h he Labour Par y and he Conserva ive Par y in Bri ain, would be o replace up ron ui ion ees wi h a “gradua e ax,” a surcharge on ederalincome ax ha would be paid over a period a er gradua ion based on pos gradu-a ion earnings, no on he cos o he program atended.22

Such a sys em enables s uden s o pay or heir educa ion once hey’ve nished, which is he case, oo, wi h s uden loans, bu he repaymen s are scaled o heira er-gradua ion earnings. So hose whose priva e re urns on heir college degreeare higher (say, hose in he nancial sec or) would pay more each year, while

hose whose priva e re urns are lower (say, someone who eaches kindergar en) would pay less. Tis idea builds on he loan orgiveness program ha we curren ly have in place or hose who work in public service.23

For many young people, he economic case or atending may no be as clear cuas i appears o economis s looking a he average experience o gradua es over helas hree decades. High and rising levels o inequali y wi hin college gradua esmean ha an impor an share o gradua es don’ air much beter han heir coun-

erpar s who le school a er high school (even ignoring he cos o college).

Policies ha bols er earnings among hose college gradua es who don’ make asmuch money a er gradua ion as heir higher earning peers migh encourage morehigh school gradua es o en er college and nish up. In addi ion, policies ha work

o elimina e gender segrega ion or ha boos he pay o radi ionally emale-domina ed occupa ions migh be par icularly help ul since many o he lowespaying jobs or college gradua es, men or women, are in hose occupa ions haare domina ed by women.

One nal policy considera ion concerns he possibili y ha he demand

s ruc ure in he economy may be changing again. Evidence sugges s ha inrecen years employmen grow h is concen ra ed mos in he botom our h orso o he occupa ional skill dis ribu ion, in jobs such as ood service, personalcare, and pro ec ive service occupa ions. In con ras , demand a he op o heearnings curve, or jobs such as managers, pro essionals, and echnicians, is




a or possibly even alling. I so, recen high school gradua es migh in erprehis developmen as evidence agains inves ing heavily in a college educa ion,

in which case policies o promo e grea er college atainmen migh be gh ingagains and no wi h he marke s ream.

Once we dig in o he da a, he college conundrum begins o evapora e. Youngpeople are no nishing college in he numbers ha economis s hink hey should because he rising nancial re urns on a college degree only cap ure par o hedecision acing young people. On average, he pay-o o college is much higher

oday, bu so is he cos , bo h he up ron cos and he deb -burden carried by recen gradua es. And or many o he recen high school gradua es who are waver-ing abou atending college, heaveragere urn may no be he mos relevan bench-mark. Despi e high and rising nancial re urns on a college degree, an impor anshare o college gradua es s ill make less han he average high school gradua e in

he same age range, even wi hou ac oring in he direc cos s o college. Several o

hese ac ors appear o weigh more heavily on men han hey do on women, whichmay help o explain why young men have lagged behind young women. Menappear o be less willing o assume high levels o deb or college, which may in parre ec heir increasingly mixed nancial experience a er college.




Endnotes

1 W cu 25- 34-y a - ld b cau y a ld ug av c pl d a u -y a c ll g d g ll w g a -

da d duca al aj c y a d ll y u g ug ll u ab ula v ly c d c ab u a d g a d c pl g c ll g .

2 t p g p c p j c a w ll d lv d p u duc d p l cy b .

3 t av ag c c ll g u a d 2010 ab u 2.9 g a p va c ll g a d ab u 3.6 g a

publ c c ll g a wa 1980; v a publ c w -y a c ll g ab u 2.6 xp v w a 1980. 25-

34-y a - ld , u c ll g ( la v g c l) aab u 2.4 g w a 1980.

4 t C ll g B a d Adv cacy a d P l cy C , “t d s udA d 2010” (2010), ava labl a p:// d .c ll g b a d. g/

ud _a d.

5 u w c x c u y c ll g ,: m lly . mci a d C c l a el a r u , t o C ll g :

r a d C pl r a A g tw -Y a C ll g s ud ”(Wa g : C A ca P g , 2009).

6 D p d ud ly. na al C educa s a c ,“2007-08 na al P c da y s ud A d s udy (nPsAs:08)” (U.s.D pa educa , 2009); C pu a by nCes Qu cks a

11/21/2010.

7 h a B u y, “s ud D b : B gg a d B gg ” (Wa g :C ec c a d P l cy r a c , 2005), upda d 2008d lla u g CPi-rs.

8 D p d ud ly. na al C educa s a c ,

“2007-08 na al P c da y s ud A d s udy (nPsAs:08)” (U.s.D pa educa , 2009); C pu a by nCes Qu cks a 11/21/2010.

9 D p d ud ly. na al C educa s a c ,“2007-08 na al P c da y s ud A d s udy (nPsAs:08)” (U.s.D pa educa , 2009); C pu a by nCes Qu cks a

11/21/2010.

10 Bu au Lab s a c ,College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2009High School Graduates (U.s. D pa Lab , 2010).

11 na al C educa al s a c , “e ll P c-da y i u , all 2004; G adua ra , 1998 a d 2001

C ; a d a c al s a c , cal Y a 2004,” tabl 6 (2006).

12 t ul a ba d aw da a, g c l , d qua a v ly, ug qual a v ly, al

g -c ll d a aly .

13 s , xa pl : Da Ac glu, “C a g U pl y a dWag i qual y: A Al a v t y a d s ev d c ,” Ameri-can Economic Review 89 (1999): 1259-1278; Dav d Au , Law cKa z, a d m l a s. K a y, “r g Wag i qual y: t r l

C p a d P c .” W k g Pap 11628 (na al Bu au ec c r a c , 2005); Dav d Au , Law c Ka z, a d m l as. K a y, “t d U.s. Wag i qual y: r a g r v -

,” r v w ec c a d s a c 90 (2) (2008): 300-323; Dav dh. Au a d Dav d D , “t G w L w sk ll s v c J b a d

P la za U.s. Lab ma k ,” u publ d a u c p(ma ac u i u t c l gy, 2010); maa G a dAla ma g, “L u y a d L v ly J b : t r g P la za W k B a ,”Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (1) (2007):118-133; a d maa G , Ala ma g, a d A a sal ,

“r c C a g eu p a e pl y s uc u : t r l t c l g cal C a g , Gl bal za a d i u ,” American

Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 99 (2) (2009):58-63 xp c U d K gd a d eu p a c .

14 Au a d D , “t G w L w sk ll s v c J b a d P la -za U.s. Lab ma k .”.

15 Dav d Au , “t P la za J b opp u U.s. Labma k : i pl ca e pl y a d ea g ” (Wa g :C A ca P g a d t ha l P j c , 2010).

16 i c c d cu , p la za u d p ccally g w a p a d b d bual g d a ( la v ) d cl ddl .

17 s Dav d Au , “t P la za J b opp u U.s.Lab ma k ,” gu 1.

18 s Au , “t P la za J b opp u U.s. Labma k ,” gu 4. s pa a ly, c ll g - g c l wag p -

u al app a av fa d 2000 .

19 a xc ll u v y ccupa al g ga by g d

a ly 1970 ug p , A a h g w c , ha aL p a , J y hay , a d h d ha a , “s pa a a d nequal? G d s g ga Lab ma k a d G dWag Gap” (Wa g , i u W ’ P l cy r a c ,2010).

20 Bu au Lab s a c , “e pl y P j c : 2008-2018 su -a y” (D pa Lab , 2010), ava labl a p://www.bl .g v/

w . l a / c p . 0.

21 d a w d , L u s a , “W k g L a ”(Wa g : C A ca P g , 2009).

22 a d cu , i u cal s ud , “G Budg2002” C ap 8 (2002), ava labl a p://www. . g.uk/publ ca-

/1969.

23 t C ll g C r duc a d Acc Ac 2007 abl d aw publ c v c l a g v p g a . g adua w

a pl y d ull- publ c v c , y ak l apay 10 y a , a d a p d, a gd al ud l a a d c a g d. t a al l a g v -

p g a p c c ccupa a d c l v l .




About the authors

Heather Boushey is Senior Economis a he Cen er or American Progress. Herresearch ocuses on employmen , social policy, and amily economic well-being.She co-edi edTe Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything (Simon &

Schus er ebook, 2009) and was a lead au hor o “Bridging he Gaps,” a 10-s a es udy abou how low- and -modera e-income working amilies are le ou o work suppor programs.

John Schmitt is a Senior Economis a he Cen er or Economic and Policy Research. He is a co-au hor wi h Lawrence Mishel and Jared Berns ein o hreeedi ions o Te State of Working America(Cornell Universi y Press) and mosrecen ly edi or wi h Jerome Gau ier o Low-Wage Work in the Wealthy World (Russell Sage Founda ion).



The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute

dedicated to promoting a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunity

or all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies re lect these values.

We work to ind progressive and pragmatic solutions to signi icant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is “o the people, by the people, and or the people.”

Documents

The College Conundrum