I started this visualization to show how first-year classes at the highly rejective colleges had changed since COVID-19 forced them all to go to a test-optional approach for the Fall of 2021. But it sort of took on a life of its own after that, as big, beefy data sets often do.
The original point was to help discount the conventional wisdom, which is propped up by a limited, old study of a small set of colleges that showed test-optional policies didn’t affect diversity. I did this post last year, after just one year of data made it fairly clear they did at the institutions that had the luxury of selecting and shaping their class.
This year I took it a little farther. The views, using the tabs across the top, show the same trends (now going to 2022) for Public Land Grants, Public Flagships, the Ivy and Ivy+ Institutions. In each case, choose one using the control.
Note that I had colored the years by national trends: 2018 and 2019 are pre-test optional, gray is COVID, and blue is post-test optional. This is not to say that any individual college selected either required tests or went test-optional in those years, but rather shows the national trend. And remember these show enrolling students, not admitted students, which is why gray is critical; we know COVID changed a lot of plans, and thus 2020 may be an anomalous year.
The fourth view shows where students of any selected ethnicity enroll (again, use the dropdown box at the top to make a selection); the fifth view breaks out ethnicity by sector; and the final view allows you to look at diversity by sector and region (to avoid comparing diversity in Idaho, California, and Mississippi, for instance, three states with very different racial and ethnic makeups.)
On all views, hovering over a data point explains what you’re seeing.
If you work at a college or university, or for a private company that uses this data in your work, and want to support my time and effort, as well as software and web hosting costs, you can do that by buying me a coffee, here. Note that I won’t accept contributions from students, parents, or high school counselors, or from any company that wants to do business with my employer.
And, as always, let me know what jumps out at you here.
A new approach to freshman migration, which is always a popular post on Higher Ed Data Stories.
If you’re a regular reader, you can go right to the visualization and start interacting with it. And I can’t stress enough: You need to use the controls and click away to get the most from these visualizations.
If you’re new, this post focuses on one of the most interesting data elements in IPEDS: The geographic origins of first-year (freshman) students over time. My data set includes institutions in the 50 states and DC. It includes four-year public and four-year, private not-for-profits that participate in Title IV programs; and it includes traditional institutions using the Carnegie classification (Doctoral, Masters, Baccalaureate, and Special Focus Schools in business, engineering, and art/design.
Data from other institutions is noisy and often unreliable, or (in the case of colleges in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and other territories, often shows close to 100% of enrollment from that territory.)
Instead of explaining how to interact with these views, I’ve put a text box on the view when appropriate. You won’t break anything by clicking; I promise.
If you use this in your business, I appreciate your support on Buy Me A Coffee to help with web hosting, software, computer, and labor costs. If you are a parent or a high school counselor, just scroll right to the views.
Yes, there are some data problems in every report using IPEDS data, so don’t make any strategic decisions based on what you see here (I corrected Harvard’s 2012 glitch of not reporting anyone from California but 220 students from Arkansas instead, and I see Kenyon 2022 is funky. I only report what’s in the data, folks.)
On April 6, the U.S. Department of Education released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on student eligibility for athletic teams under Title IX. The proposed rulemaking focuses on transgender students’ eligibility to participate on athletic teams as legislation and policies at the federal, state and local levels have been introduced to ban transgender student participation in athletic programs.
Under the NPRM, schools that receive federal funding would not be permitted to adopt or apply a “one-size-fits-all” ban on transgender students participating on teams consistent with their gender identity. Instead, the proposal allows schools the flexibility to develop team eligibility criteria that serves important educational objectives, such as fairness in competition and preventing sports-related injuries. The Department further explains that the eligibility criteria must take into account the sport, level of competition, and grade or education level of students participating, and the criteria would have to minimize harm to students whose opportunity to participate on a team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.
The NPRM comes after the Biden administration announced its intention to release such a proposed rule after it excluded language on transgender student eligibility in athletics in its June 2022 Title IX proposed rule. The rule comes as policymakers at the federal, state and local levels have introduced and passed legislation that bans transgender participation on women’s athletic teams. Most recently, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 734, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, out of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where it now awaits a full floor vote. The bill would prohibit federally-funded education programs or activities to operate, sponsor or facilitate athletic programs or activities that allow individuals of the male sex to participate in programs or activities that are designated for women or girls, defining “sex” as an individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.
Public comments in response to the NPRM will be due 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. CUPA-HR will work with other higher education associations to fully analyze the NPRM and respond accordingly.
When PhD student, Cate Adamson finds an unknown painting in her university’s basement, she journeys to Spain to uncover the mystery. An impoverished duke, misogynist advisor, and intrigue in the archives. Attribution is the perfect gift for the academic in your life!
Linda Moore, author of Attribution, joins me in this featured interview. We talk about her book and how to get comfortable talking about your book too.
I’ve you’ve ever felt anxious about talking about your book, this is a great interview for you!
Start with this short video, that goes behind-the-scenes on women’s experiences in the academy. This video is fire, please share it with your friends.
Jennifer: Hello everyone, my name is Jennifer van Alstyne. And welcome to The Social Academic on YouTube. I’m here today with author Linda Moore we’re talking about her amazing book, Attribution, which is about a PhD student named Cate.
Linda, would you mind introducing yourself?
Linda: Hi, everyone. I’m Linda Moore. I spent more than a few years collecting degrees from various universities and I’m so excited to talk to people in the academic community.
Jennifer: Today we’re talking about your book, Attribution, which is on the 2022 Gift Guide for Academics. And I’ve put it on the Gift Guide because it is such a fun story. I think that you’re really going to relate to the protagonist Cate who is a PhD student in art history. Can you tell us a little bit about Cate?
Linda: Cate Adamson is a complex character, young, 23. She’s suffering from the challenges of the drowning death of her younger brother, only sibling, and her blue-collar parents who are back in Michigan. She had to drop out of her program at University of Michigan to do a lot of help around her family’s home. And then finally decided the only way that she could really help them was to move forward and prove to them that a daughter could have a future as well.
She goes off to New York and there she meets her nemesis faculty advisor who won’t approve any of her dissertation topics. And she is assigned to do the ugly job of inventorying the art in the basement of the university. She has found a hidden painting in an old chest that isn’t on the inventory list and decides that it could be a Golden Age masterpiece from about 400 years ago in the era of Philip IV in Spain.
During the holidays, she takes the canvas to Spain and looks for experts. And I’ll leave it there because I don’t want to give off any spoilers about where the book goes.
Jennifer: Cate’s journey is so much fun and her struggles as a graduate student I think are so relatable for the people that are on my blog who are going to read Attribution.
Jennifer: When it comes to Cate’s journey and her struggle as a grad student, she’s up against an advisor who isn’t appreciating the research that she is bringing to the table. And she wants to study women.
What is it about women artists that makes Cate’s journey so difficult?
Linda: Well, it’s interesting and shocking actually how little women have been highlighted in the history of art.
The famous Janson History of Art book that we were all assigned in history of Art 101 or even in High School AP History of Art it is still the go-to book. The initial edition had no women artist, none.
I mean we’re talking from cave art days of the Neanderthals to Contemporary Art. It didn’t have Georgia O’Keefe. It didn’t have Mary Cassatt. It didn’t have Frida Kahlo. It took until the 70s when the Women’s Movement was really coming more alive for Janson’s son, who did a rewrite of one of the editions, to begin adding women.
I thought, ‘Okay well that was 50 years ago.’ However, if you look at the collections…
The piece on the cover which is a nude by Velázquez held in The National Gallery of London. And I read that The National Gallery of London only had 15% of its collection was women artists.
Linda: And I’m shocked. And I thought, oh well, the Brits. You know, but honestly, The Met in New York has…are you ready? 7% of its collection are women artists.
Linda: Yes. And that’s with a lot of distinguished women being on the board and being in the curatorial staff. So I think there is now a resurgence of a movement to correct these things. And with that is coming a lot of women who are extraordinary like Artemisia Gentileschi who was the artist that we know a lot about because she was raped by her painting tutor in the 1500s in Italy. And that is all that trial was documented in the courts. So we have a lot of information. Many paintings of hers are now being reattributed to her because of the fact that you know people didn’t believe such good works could have been done by a woman so they would attribute them to some contemporary man. She has had numerous exhibitions there’s a lot of exciting work going on to try to rewrite the history of women in art.
Jennifer: I love that it sounds like it really inspired some of the circumstances in your book.
Jennifer: One thing that I really love is that I can tell your passion for art. Tell me a little bit about your background in art.
Linda: Well I am a political science major as an undergraduate with a minor in Spanish and anthropology. I really became excited about art when I went to Madrid with the education abroad program of the University of California. A wonderful program that has grown so much since I was in it and I continue to be a big supporter of that program.
I discovered art. My grandmother was a painter, but the kind of art I was able to see in Europe. To be able to study Spanish art in the Prado, Italian art in the Prado, and see the real paintings, not slides in the darkened lecture hall. I was just blown away, very excited.
I never stopped loving art. I spent some time in other careers, became a hospital administrator, did different things. And then decided that I really wanted to open an art gallery. I focused my art gallery on the art of the southern cone of South America, not something we see very much in California, or even in the United States.
I was inspired by that because I’d gotten my master’s degree from Stanford and Latin American studies with a specialization in politics. But I realized I could teach a lot more about Latin America and what was going on through the artist’s eyes from that part of the world. I can remember even the days where I had to bring a map of South America to the gallery and share with the staff where was Uruguay, even Argentina. I mean our knowledge of the geography of South America is quite bad.
Jennifer: I understand. I’m from Peru and people ask me where that is all the time.
Linda: Oh yeah, and politics of Peru right now…we could have a whole conversation about that.
Jennifer: Yes, absolutely.
Linda: But in any case I really enjoyed the way that art, and being involved with the artists, and understanding their world, their history, their current challenges…that art embodies all of it. And I enjoy that so much. I was always learning. Still, always learning all the time in so many areas.
Jennifer: Well, the first time we met was at an art show. You told me pretty immediately about Attribution. It was maybe the first time that an author had been so open and so generous with the creation that they had made. I loved it and I was so excited to read it.
I heard about Cate’s journey and I was like I’m gonna read that book. And Attribution really did touch me. You’re so comfortable talking about your book that when I saw you again at Warwick’s for your reading I was like ‘Oh my gosh, not only is she comfortable talking about her book in person, she’s letting people know that she’s sharing it on Instagram in Reels, on social media.’ That is difficult for so many people. It’s scary and anxiety provoking.
What’s it like to talk about your book?
Linda: Having been an art gallery owner, it was quite easy for me to talk about other people’s art. I’m for the first time talking about my own art, right? So there it is [Linda holds up the book]. I have it, you know, all over the place here. That’s marketing 101. Let people remember the name of the book, Attribution.
I finally had a talk with myself and I said, “Okay, if you were making the most fabulous chocolate chip cookies in the world. And people raved about them and told you how good they were, you would have no trouble at all saying, ‘Jen have some of my chocolate chip cookies they’re really really good.’ And that feels quite natural to say right?”
I convinced myself I worked really hard on this book for a long time, and I worked to make sure that backs were correct, that every single word was spelled right. I’m sure there are still a few errors but we sure made an effort. And the cover, everything about it. I felt it was a competent quality book, just like my chocolate chip cookies.
And I would say, “Please try my book, I think I’m offering you something you’ll enjoy, something I’m proud of.” And I always end with saying, “Let me know what you think, because I am interested to hear from readers.” And hopefully the next book will be even better.
But I can’t say that there aren’t moments when I think the other person must be thinking, “Oh my god, there she goes about that book again.”
[Jennifer laughs.]
Linda: So I try to at least moderate a bit who my audience is and hold back so I don’t end up losing all my invitations.
[Jennifer laughs:] Oh, thank you for saying that too. Because you know, I think people are anxious about having that reaction. And you’re someone who’s doing this quite often. You are talking about your book. You are being open about it. And people aren’t snubbing you. People aren’t like, “Oh my gosh, there’s Linda, let me run the other way.” No.
They’re talking about your book. They’re at your readings. They’re helping share it with their friends. And I think that that is something that the power of connection can really create.
I just want to share some comments with you from the live chat: “Have some of my chocolate chip cookies, yes, I love it.”
Attribution is on the 2022 Gift Guide for Academics. We do recommend that you buy it for yourself, buy another copy for a friend. Honestly, I loved reading this book. So I highly recommend it.
Linda: Well it is easy to talk about something that you personally enjoyed.
Inviting conversation about your book
Linda: I love really to hear other people talk about [the book], which you can only make that happen by first talking about it yourself.
I went to quite a few little presentations about marketing books. And you know this whole world was all new learning for me. I learned that in spite of all the social media, and all the things, which I know Jen you’re very dedicated to it. And I too am. Is that still, word of mouth is that big source of how people find their way to a book.
But how do you get word of mouth going? I mean you can only know the hundred people on my Christmas card list, right? That’s easy to get to. All that you know my relatives, and their neighbors. And you know but ultimately your circle kind of starts to slow down because we can only all know so many people personally. To begin to reach beyond that does mean to keep the conversation going.
I do think of it like a conversation instead of a sales pitch, because you know for some people my book is not right. It’s not their thing. And I’ve spent more than a few sessions in Barnes and Nobles and other bookstores, and the first question I ask people is, “Do you read novels?”
And if they say, “No, actually I read biographies of sports figures,” I go okay. And then I might convert to a conversation of who their favorite team of this or that is, because I don’t think they’re probably going to be a reader for my book. But sometimes, and I used to say this in the gallery, “If you can’t make a sale, make a friend.” So, I try to make a friend. Then I might find out that his sister would really enjoy the book, but maybe he wouldn’t.
Jennifer: Exactly.
Linda: Word of mouth is ultimately there, but it all begins with putting yourself out there in a variety of ways, including social media. And physically showing up, and being willing to to raise your flag and say, “Hey, I’m an author.”
Jennifer: Tell me a little bit more about social media. I know that you’re on Instagram and Facebook. Tell me about why you decided to join social media.
Linda: I was already on social media, mostly Facebook, a little bit Instagram. I had a Twitter account which now…
No one look for me on Twitter because, “I’m sorry Elon, I am not a friend or a fan in any way.”
I don’t want to be part of something that, I don’t know if I even have a word for it but it certainly isn’t a dialogue with people. And it’s not it’s not my world.
I will say Facebook we love to love it and hate it all at the same time. I know a lot of people have left, but I initially got on there and was traveling a lot before COVID over the last 10 years.
Facebook is such a great way to share with people: here’s where I am, here’s you know what I’m looking at this morning in some beautiful place. And a reminder of all these people’s birthdays and things I would never in a million years remember that. Just to reach out to friends. It takes so little effort to do it, that I really do appreciate it.
I have found great joy and looking at my friend’s grandkids photos and where they’re traveling. And learning about what they’re reading, sometimes I find my way to really interesting stories.
Since I’ve been writing stories on my Linda Moore Author page, and Facebook, and Instagram, about these women artists who’ve been forgotten. I post pictures of paintings that are in the book. And also photos of places in the book. But it leads to a lot of interesting conversations. Especially during COVID, when we were also isolated. It was really nice to connect with people in a safe way. And that continues.
I have met just such amazing people. It blows me away when I get a note from New Zealand or somewhere that someone’s read the book. Now how could that happen any other way?
Instagram, the Reels, was not my world. But I will tell you, my daughter-in-law, who had 25,000 followers for, are you ready? For the dog. His name is Ravioli, if you want to be his friend. My daughter-in-law encouraged me to do Reels. And I have had some fun with it. I mean the ones of me doing exercise, which you know gets a lot of attention mostly because I’m so not fit it seems to be a hit.
Linda: It gets attention because they’re so sweet. I went home immediately after your reading when you mentioned your Reel to Eye of the Tiger. I watched it and I was like this should be viral! Everyone should see this Reel, it’s amazing. I loved it.
Linda: Oh good, put it out there, Jen. But it does allow you to share a different dimension of yourself. And it could be you hitting a golf ball and missing five times, I don’t know. But it’s just a way to show that you have many layers.
People suffer from stereotypes of lawyers, and doctors, and professors. And I think that an opportunity to show you with that pet that you love, or with the house you’re trying to renovate, or you know whatever else is going on in your life. Because it makes you relatable as a person, as a human being. Even if you’re teaching students, to share that dimension of yourself I think is a really wonderful way to connect with the world.
Jennifer: Thank you for sharing that. Just from the live comments, Dr. Jennifer Polk says, “I appreciate Linda sharing about having fun taking risks on social media. I’ve not done that so much. Reels scare me.” I think that’s true for so many people.
What was it like asking for some help with Instagram? Your daughter-in-law is helping you with those Reels. Most people are anxious to ask for help or guidance in any way. What was that experience like for you?
Linda: Well, I would say in general about everything in your life, nobody knows everything. So asking for help is a very human quality whether it’s you know making those chocolate chip cookies, or ending up trying to figure out how the heck do I do a Reel? And my daughter-in-law will tell you that I am not a good student of Instagram.
I’m still trying to figure it out. I had not wanted to ask her because I knew she was really good at it. And just like you were saying, I was reluctant because it seems like an imposition. But she came to me. We struck a deal where she wanted some of my airline miles that had piled up when I went nowhere during COVID, to go to a friend’s wedding. I traded her miles for making me Reels.
Jennifer: I love it.
Linda: Then she decided she wanted to go with me on some of these book tours to Seattle, and other places. It was really fun to have her along, and be partners in this. She was doing some of the filming so I learned more of her artistic approach to production of these things.
Now I do a few little videos of my own and I’ll send them to her. You can take a look at those. I don’t think they’re Academy Award-quality, frankly. She does a great job especially. The ones I do are not nearly as good…She’s taught me a lot.
But you know what? There’s a lot out there where you can learn. You can just Google it. You don’t have to necessarily put yourself in front of people. But for people who are close to young people, to make a friend and maybe offer something in order to get some help. I think that young people are very happy to help.
The guy who cuts my hair taught me how to do the first Reel I ever did.
Jennifer: Really?
Linda: Yeah, it’s on there. You can see him, he’s trying to do my hair and he says behind me, I’m filming right? And he says behind me, “Oh, we’re gonna need a miracle here.”
And I go, “Oh no!” It’s so simple really. All I had to do was hold the camera.
I think that it’s also great to connect with young people. I envy faculty and others who have the opportunity to be around young people as they get older. And to understand their world and make yourself vulnerable to be the one that’s the student and they’re the teacher and change roles. I think that’s healthy. If that’s a motivator of why you might want to do this to understand their world better. I think that’s maybe an easy call.
Jennifer: Attribution is such a fun read. I encourage you to pick up a copy of Attribution by author Linda Moore. It’s on the 2022 Gift Guide for Academics because it’s about a PhD student named Cate who really has a journey to find herself, to find her power, to find what she wants for the world. I just loved this book and I know that you are going to love it too.
Jennifer: Linda, tell me have you had any struggles or anxieties yourself about marketing the book? I mean it sounds like Instagram was something that was new to you but it sounds like you really approached it with some fun. Was there something that you did struggle with though?
Linda: Well I think like this kind of thing, Jennifer, doing podcasts and radio interviews are even more difficult. Because I’m a visual person. An interview is kind of almost more anxiety.
Jennifer: Oh, that’s interesting.
Linda: Now I’ve sort of been through the trial by fire learning method. I have learned a few things. Number one, don’t be boring. That goes for Instagram and Facebook and all of that.
Try to find something interesting. If you’re not educating, then entertain, or both. Both is best, where people can learn something but it’s also extremely entertaining and enjoyable. Because no one goes there because they have to. I think that most important to just be yourself. Like you’re sitting with a conversation and try to just like we’re having coffee, Jen. And not worry.
I was on a panel recently at a bookstore Book Passage in the Bay Area. The moderator had sent us some questions ahead, like we might have questions like this. But I’ve done enough of these to know that nothing ever goes like the plan, right? So you have to be flexible.
There was another panelist, this is a super Highly Educated person, and she had written out all the answers to her questions. She was ready to read them like it was a lecture or presentation. I explained to her that I thought it would not necessarily go that way. She couldn’t depend on her answers. I could see that was a real change in her thinking. Because in the moment, she would be frustrated that she wasn’t getting through the assignment, right? But there is no assignment. It’s a conversation that needs to be very flexible if it’s going to be real and authentic.
Jennifer: So being adaptable. And it sounds like you can prepare, but you can’t prepare for everything. And being able to have that conversation and be interested in the spontaneity that the conversation might go in is really important.
Jennifer: Well thank you Linda, so much for coming on and telling us more about what your approach to book marketing is. And how you really are connecting with people, individual people, to help share your book. I think that it makes such a difference.
I could see the passion of the people who were in your audience at Warwick’s book shop here in Southern California. They were really interested not only in what you were saying, but why you were saying it. I think that your story and Cate’s story in Attribution, which is again on the 2022 Gift Guide for Academics, pick up a copy…is so interesting. It’s something that people find memorable.
Linda: Thank you, Jen. Also let me say to those reading, you can reach me on my website. And please, email me. I answer all the emails. If you have a particular question or something that we didn’t touch on that would interest you, I’m very happy to hear from you by email.
Jennifer: Thank you so much for reading! Linda, thank you so much for joining me.
Our last interview of the year goes live next week. Don’t miss it.
Linda Moore is an author, traveler, and a recovering gallery owner. She studied art history at the Prado while a student at the University of Madrid and earned degrees from the University of California and Stanford. Her gallery featured contemporary artists and she has published award-winning exhibition catalogs. Her writing has appeared in art journals and anthologies. She has looked at art on all continents and visited over 100 countries She resides with her book-collecting husband in California. Her debut novel Attribution about an art historian who finds a hidden masterpiece, is available wherever books are sold.
With the Comprehensive Spending Review due next Wednesday, I thought it might be worth making some general points about student loans (in anticipation of potential changes to repayment thresholds and other parameters).
I do not think student loans are a good vehicle for redistributive measures.
As I told a couple of parliamentary committees in 2017, the current redistributive aspects are an accidental function of the decision to lower the financial reporting discount rate for student loans from RPI plus 2.2 percent to RPI plus 0.7. Such a downwards revision elevates the value of future cash repayments and in this case it meant that the payments projected to be received from higher earners began to exceed the value of the initial cash outlay.
The caveat here: in the eyes of government. That is the government’s discount rate, not necessarily yours. One of the reasons I favour zero real interest rates over other options is that it simplifies considerations of the future value of payments made from the individual borrower’s perspective.
Originally, student loans were proposed as a way to eliminate a middle class subsidy – free tuition – and have now become embedded as a way to fund mass, but not universal, provision.
I believe that if you are concerned about redistribution, then it is best to concentrate on the broader tax system, rather than focusing solely on the progressivity or otherwise of student loans. You can see from the original designs for the 2012 changes that the idea of the higher interest rates were meant to make the loan scheme mimic a proportionate graduate tax and eliminate the interest rate subsidy enjoyed by higher earners on older loans. The original choice of “post-2012” student loan interest rates of RPI + 0 to 3 percentage points was meant to match roughly the old discount rate of RPI plus 2.2%. Again, see my submission to the Treasury select committee for more detail.
I will just set out a few illustrative examples here as to why some of the debates about fairness in relation to repayment terms need a broader lens.
It is often observed that two graduates on the same salaries are left with different disposable incomes, if one has benefited from their parents, say, paying their tuition fees and costs of living during study so that they don’t lose 9 per cent of their salary over the repayment threshold (just under £20,000 per year for pre-2012 loans; just over £27,000 for post-2012 loans).
That’s clearly the case.
But the parents had to pay c. £50,000 upfront to gain that benefit for their child. And it is by no means certain that option is the best use of such available money. Only a minority of borrowers go on to repay the equivalent of what they borrowed using the government’s discount rate, and as an individual you should probably have a higher discount rate than the government. You also forego the built-in death and disability insurance in student loans.
Payment upfront is therefore a gamble, one where the odds differ markedly for men and women. (See analyses by London Economics and Institute for Fiscal Affairs for the breakdowns on the different percentages of men and women who do pay the equivalent of more than they borrowed.)
If a family has the £50,000 spare (certainly don’t borrow it from elsewhere), then the following options are likely more sensible:
pledge to cover your child’s rent until the £50,000 runs out: this allows student to avoid taking on excessive paid work during study and will boost their disposable income afterwards;
provide the £50,000 as a deposit towards a house purchase;
even put the £50,000 in a pot to cover the student loan repayments as they arise;
etc.
In two of those cases, you’ll have a useful contingency fund too.
All strike me as better options than eschewing the government-subsidised loan scheme.
Moreover, those three options remain in the event of a graduate tax or the abolition of tuition fees.
That fundamental unfairness – family wealth – isn’t addressed by changing the HE funding system. (I write as someone who helped craft the HE pledges in Labour’s 2015 and 2017 manifestos).
In many ways, the government prefers people to pay upfront because it reduces the immediate cash demand. From that perspective, upfront payment works as a form of voluntary wealth taxation (at least in the short-run). Arguably, those who pay upfront have been taxed at the beginning and are gambling on outcomes that mean that future “rebates” exceed the original payment for their children.
Perhaps this line of reasoning opens up debates about means-testing fees and emphasises the need to restore maintenance grants … but really it points to harder problems regarding the taxation of intergenerational transfers and disposable wealth.
I am not a certified financial advisor so comments above are simply my opinions. You should not base investment decisions on them.
Well, the name seems to mislead people into thinking that the provider of student finance is a private institution, potentially making profit out of students, when it is in fact publicly owned.
There are 20 shares in the SLC: 17 are owned by the Department for Education (which has responsibility for English-domiciled students) and another three, each of those owned by one of the devolved administrations.
When you want to see what’s going on with student loans you look at government accounts: national, departmental or those of devolved administrations.
OK. So what’s the point of mentioning this factoid?
I believe that the misunderstanding about the publicly-owned nature of the SLC contributes to thinking that leads to other confusions, such as those surrounding function of the interest rate in student loans and what the effect of reducing them would be.
Let’s leave aside the misunderstandings about the recent ONS accounting changes and concentrate on the claim that reducing interest rates would “address the size of the debt owed itself”.
The government is looking to reduce public debt, but lowering interest rates would only do this in the long-run, if the loan balances eventually written off were written off by making a payment to a private company to clear those balances.
There is probably another confusion here regarding the Janus-faced nature of student debt: it is an asset for government (it is owed to government) and a liability for borrowers. The outstanding balances on borrowers’ accounts are not the same as the associated government debt.
When the government thinks about public debt in relation to student loans, it is thinking about the borrowing it had to take on in order to create the student loans.
Imagine that I borrow £10 in the bond markets to lend you £10 for your studies: I have a debt to the markets and an asset, what you owe me. The interest on the former and the latter are not the same and the terms of repayment on the latter are income-contingent so I don’t expect to get sufficient repayments back from you to cover my debt to the markets.
Student loans are not self-sustaining. It requires a public subsidy – any announcements about loans in the spending review at the end of the month will be about how much subsidy the government is prepared to offer.
On September 29, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo released a memorandum stating her position that student athletes (or “Players at Academic Institutions,” as she refers to them in the memo) are employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and are afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law. Abruzzo declares, “The broad language of Section 2(3) of the [NLRA], the policies underlying the NLRA, Board law, and the common law fully support the conclusion that certain Players at Academic Institutions are statutory employees, who have the right to act collectively to improve their terms and conditions of employment.”
Abruzzo also states that misclassifying such individuals as non-employees and leading them to believe they are not afforded protections under the NLRA has a “chilling effect” on Section 7 activity. She said she would consider this misclassification an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. Abruzzo further stated that the intent of the memo is to “educate the public, especially Players at Academic Institutions, colleges and universities, athletic conferences, and the NCAA” about her position in future appropriate cases.
The memo revives issues surrounding employment status of student athletes that the NLRB has previously ruled on. In March 2014, the NLRB’s Regional Director in Chicago ruled that Northwestern players receiving football scholarships are employees and have a right to organize under the NLRA. In August 2015, the NLRB released a unanimous decision dismissing the representation petition filed by a group of Northwestern football players seeking to unionize. In doing so, however, the board’s decision did not definitively resolve the issue of whether college athletes are employees and have a protected right to unionize under the NLRA. After considering arguments of both parties in the case and various amici, including CUPA-HR, the board declined to assert jurisdiction on the issue, stating that “asserting jurisdiction would not promote labor stability [because the] Board does not have jurisdiction over state-run colleges and universities, which constitute” the vast majority of the teams. The board noted, however, its “decision is narrowly focused to apply only to the players in this case and does not preclude reconsideration of this issue in the future.” Another issue in the Northwestern decision was the board’s lack of jurisdiction over “walk-on” players who do not receive scholarships. It remains to be seen how Abruzzo will overcome in future cases the two jurisdictional obstacles identified in Northwestern.
CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of NLRB actions and cases that may prompt the agency to rule on the issue regarding student athlete employment status.
Economic & Fiscal Outlook, Office for Budgetary Responsibility (March 2021), adapted from Tables 3.14 & 3.26
I have constructed the table above from forecasts for Total Managed Expenditure and Financial Transactions taken from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility’s latest publication (it accompanied Wednesday’s Budget).
It shows how newly issued student loans are now split into two components for the purposes of presentation in the National Accounts. The portion of loans that are expected to be repaid are classed as “financial transactions”, while the portion expected to be written off is recorded as capital expenditure. The latter scores in “public sector investment”, which was adopted as a new fiscal target prior to the pandemic (net investment cannot exceed 3% of national income), though the rules are currently under review.
We can see that student loan outlay is expected to reach £20billion in the year to March 2021, rising to £23.6billion in five years’ time. The majority of new outlay is now expected to be written off and that share rises over the forecast period. By 2025/26 repayments on all existing loans are projected to re000000000000000ach nearly £5billion per year. (This figure has improved since the sale programme for post-2012 loans was abandoned, since the treasury now gets the receipts that would have gone to private purchasers).
As mentioned in recent posts on here, the Department for Education only currently has an allocation of £4billion to cover the capital transfer / grant element of new loans and so it has to be granted large additional budgetary supplements each year. This situation has dragged on as the planned spending review has been postponed. We can now expect developments in the Autumn.
Under “Note K: Contingent Liabilities” (p. 90) we find that a fifth contingent liability has been added to those associated with the now abandoned sale of student loans.
The sale of student loans necessitated warranties and indemnities to secure interest and obtain value for money from investors. These contingent liabilities are in respect of:
…
e) New EU Securitisation Regulations (Possible CL [contingent liability] in due course). UKGI [UK Government and Investment] are seeking legal counsel to review the implications of new EU securitisation reporting requirements from 2019. Credit granting criteria are being assessed for student loans which may generate legal challenge and we will continue to work with UKGI to update as more information and analysis becomes available.
If any reader can explain what the issues may be here, I would be very grateful.
The following is an excerpt from Chris Douce’s review of my keynote “How digital engagement enhances the student experience†presented at the Higher Education Academy’s HEA 2017 Annual conference: Generation TEF.
I’ve noted that Eric said that there are social media skeptics and that social media is a subject that can be polarising. There was the suggestion that social media is all about learning, and the learning doesn’t stop when students leave the classroom. A point I noted was ‘life-long learning should be at the heart of the experience’; this is especially interesting since the life-long learning agenda within my own institution has been fundamentally impoverished due to government increases of tuition fees. It is now harder to study for an entirely different qualification, or to study a module or two with the intention of developing skills that are important in the workplace.
We were presented with a series of questions. One of them was: can social media be used for critical thinking? Perhaps it can. Information literacy is an important and necessary skill when we are faced with working out what news is fake, and what news isn’t. Other questions were: how do we use social media to build communities? Also, how do we connect to others when there’s one of ‘you’ and lots of ‘them’? In answer to ‘how’ you ‘do’ engagement through social media, I remembered that one of my colleagues, Andrew Smith gave a talk entitled ‘how our classroom has escaped’ at The Open University about how to use some social media tools (specifically Twitter) to reach out to computer networking students.
Another broad question was about digital literacy and capability. This immediately relates to another question: is there a benchmark for digital capabilities? A challenge about this perspective is one that Eric mentioned, which is: different people use social media in different ways. Another question was: how about addressing the subject of social media in staff appraisals?
A theme that appears regularly is that of employability. Perhaps lecturers should be ‘role modeling’ to students about how to use social media, since these can and do have implications for employability. Social media can be used to engage students as they become acclimatised to working within a particular institution, helping them through their first few weeks of study.
As Eric was speaking, I had my own thoughts: one way to see social media is a beginning point for further engagement with students; it can be used to expose issues and debates; it should, of course, be a beginning point and not be an end in itself. There are other issues: what are the motivations and incentives for the use of social media amongst different communities?
