abstract:We investigate how college participation may differentially influence civic behaviors among individuals who were between 18 and 20 years old in 2012. Using data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, we consider two direct measures of civic behavior, voter registration and volunteerism. We generate our estimates with propensity forests, a machine learning algorithm that can mitigate bias when using observational data and supports investigation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Overall, we find that college-goers are more likely to register to vote and volunteer, though, conditional on volunteering at all, likely to volunteer fewer hours. We find limited evidence of heterogeneous returns across various groups, suggesting that civic returns to higher education are broadly shared by those who attend.

A substantial body of literature has examined factors related to levels of public funding of higher education and to changes in public funding of higher education over the last few decades. Volatility in funding for higher education has not been examined in as much detail. Given the positive externalities associated with increasing the college educated population, volatile funding for higher education has the potential to hurt long-term economic and sociocultural development. In this studywe seekto (1) propose different measures of volatility in state funding for higher education and (2) to establish which institution-and state-level factors are associated with higher levels of volatility in higher education funding. Our theoretical framework, derived from earlier work in this area, focuses on four broad areas that can drive volatility in funding: economic forces, political changes, governance arrangements, and institutional factors. In our preferred models, we find that, for unit-specific trends, two-year institutions experience substantially higher levels of volatility than four-year institutions, unemployment rates are associated with higher volatility, and higher tuition is associated with lower levels of volatility. When considering variation from the state-specific trend, governance arrangements may play some role in "buffering" institutions from volatility in spending, particularly if the governor appoints the State Higher Education Executive Officer.

Research demonstrates that students who live closer to postsecondary institutions are more likely to attend college. Yet many communities offer few or no postsecondary options. In this study, we expand on prior research on the geographic distribution of postsecondary opportunity by developing a finer-grained measure that accounts for both the variety and density of college options in each metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Our estimates use several decay functions to measure the distance-weighted characteristics of institutions, allowing us to cross-validate different approaches and identify the most appropriate model to inform future analyses of geographic opportunity. The results of the cross-validation indicate that both the type of geographic measure used and the penalty in the inverse distance weighting function result in substantively different model fit. We find that each of the measures used in a spatial model—enrollment size, tuition, and net price—has a positive and statistically significant relationship with postsecondary enrollment at the MSA level, indicating the continuing importance of geographic opportunity for college attendance.

Despite billions of dollars spent yearly to fund higher education for low-income youth, no government agency tracks how many low-income young people attend college by state. Whereas proxy measures like Pell grant receipt address the number of already enrolled low-income students, direct estimates from U.S. Census surveys likely overestimate low-income youth enrollment due to their design. Using Bayesian multilevel regression with poststratification (MRP) to estimate postsecondary attendance rates by family income in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, we find substantial variation in attendance rates between income groups across the country.

abstract: A substantial body of literature has examined factors related to levels of public funding of higher education and to changes in public funding of higher education over the last few decades. Volatility in funding for higher education has not been examined in as much detail. Given the positive externalities associated with increasing the college educated population, volatile funding for higher education has the potential to hurt long-term economic and sociocultural development. In this study we seek to (1) propose different measures of volatility in state funding for higher education and (2) to establish which institution-and state-level factors are associated with higher levels of volatility in higher education funding. Our theoretical framework, derived from earlier work in this area, focuses on four broad areas that can drive volatility in funding: economic forces, political changes, governance arrangements, and institutional factors. In our preferred models, we find that, for unit-specific trends, two-year institutions experience substantially higher levels of volatility than four-year institutions, unemployment rates are associated with higher volatility, and higher tuition is associated with lower levels of volatility. When considering variation from the state-specific trend, governance arrangements may play some role in "buffering" institutions from volatility in spending, particularly if the governor appoints the State Higher Education Executive Officer.

Background Numerous studies have addressed the determinants of higher education appropriations. Extending prior studies that only consider the relationship between higher education and one other state budget category, Delaney and Doyle develop and test an empirical model of the relationship between higher education and all other budget categories. Delaney and Doyle propose that higher education takes the form of a balance wheel in state budgets. They find that higher education is cut more than other budget categories in bad budget years and given larger increases in good budget years. Although previous work advances understanding of how states budget for higher education, it is limited in the length of time considered. Purpose This study makes two important contributions to the literature. First, it documents changes in the amount of volatility in state funding for higher education. Second, it identifies patterns in the volatility, and does so over a longer time period than has been investigated in past research, using data that spans over a half century (1951–2006). Research Design This study uses a unique panel dataset spanning the period from 1951 to 2006 to quantitatively document changes in the extent of volatility in state funding for higher education. It also identifies and tests for patterns of volatility. Findings We find that the level of volatility in state budgeting for higher education has changed over time. We also find evidence of linear (incremental), quadratic (countercyclical), and cubic (balance wheel) patterns of volatility at different points in time. Recommendations Our findings indicate that the role of higher education in state budgets is not static and has varied over time. In policy discussions about higher education funding, we think it is important to consider both absolute funding levels and the amount of volatility in funding. We recommend that higher education leaders discuss not only funding levels with their state legislatures, but also discuss volatility in funding patterns. States and higher education have operated under different funding relationships in the past; therefore, it seems possible that policymakers and higher education officials could change their current funding relationship to conform to a pattern that better serves the needs of the state, institutions, and students.

We take advantage of a unique program design to estimate the effect of financial aid on first-to-second year persistence. In Tennessee, need-based financial aid is given to eligible students on a first-come, first-served basis, based on when the student files the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Using a regression-discontinuity design, we compare the persistence among eligible students who received need-based aid in the first and second years of college with eligible students who failed to to apply before the undisclosed cutoff date in the second year. Students at the University of Tennessee who retained their financial aid were 9.5 percentage points more likely to persist than students who lost their financial aid.

Most community college students do not borrow to pay for their education. However, in recent years more students are borrowing and, when they borrow, accumulating large amounts of debt. To help clarify whether increased debt burdens are aiding community college students or harming them, we explore the impact of borrowing on academic credit hour accumulation. Using data from the Education Longitudinal Study 2002–2012, we provide multiple estimates of the impact of borrowing on credit hour attainment among community college students. Standard estimates suggest that community college students who borrow complete fewer credit hours than students who do not borrow, although the influence is relatively small (about two credits two years after enrollment). Instrumental variables estimates suggest that the impact of borrowing on credits attained is not significant two years after enrollment but is substantial eight years after enrollment (allowing students multiple enrollment spells).

This chapter contends that scholarship should become a part of the mission of the community college. The authors describe actions for individual community colleges and state and federal actions that encourage and support the engagement of community college faculty members in scholarship.

Public support for higher education depends in part on the idea that additional postsecondary education results in civic benefits including voting, volunteering, and donating to non-profit causes. We expanded on the literature on civic benefits of higher education by utilizing a rich set of location-based instruments to identify the relationship between additional postsecondary education and civic behaviors. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, we estimated the impact of postsecondary education on civic behaviors for a group of young people aged 29 to 33 years by 2013. These new estimates indicated that an additional year of higher education increased the probability of voting by 7.7% in the 2010 election. We also found statistically significant though substantively small impacts of postsecondary education on volunteerism and donations to nonprofits, with effect sizes of .1 for voluntarism and .13 for donations.

We expand on the literature on the causal impact of postsecondary education on earnings by introducing a richer set of location-based measures as instruments for years of education. Utilizing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 1997, we implement six different sets of instruments based on geographic variation: presence of a four-year or two-year college in the county, inverse log distance to in-state two-year colleges, distance-weighted tuition and distance-weighted enrollment at in-state two-year colleges, and inverse log distance to all colleges. We find that these alternative measures yield differing estimates of the impact of educational attainment on earnings. Using our preferred measure of geographic variation, one additional year of postsecondary attainment results in a 9.5% increase in yearly earnings. We find a larger impact of postsecondary attainment for women, and no measurable impact of postsecondary attainment for men.

Understanding just how state leaders respond to fiscal crises and the continuing challenges of adequate funding should provide insight into how successful states are likely to be in creating environments where most citizens can attend and benefit from higher education. This article describes and begins to classify the nature and range of state responses to ongoing fiscal challenges. We focus on state-level leadership and governance, fiscal policies, and accountability mechanisms. We identify five types of responses: cutting costs (emphasizing cost controls and low-cost providers); buying degrees (allocating state funds based on outcomes not inputs); the grand bargain (providing more campus autonomy in exchange for lower funding); hunkering down and waiting (hoping that state appropriations will return to past levels); and falling apart (weak governance mechanisms compounding financial difficulties). The tradeoffs inherent in each approach are discussed.

This paper explores the role that state spending on higher education capital outlays plays in state budgets by considering the functional form of the relationship between state spending on higher education capital outlays and four types of state expenditures. Three possible functional forms are tested: a linear model, a quadratic model, and the balance wheel model. The balance wheel model posits that in good economic times, higher education is funded at a higher rate than other state budget categories. In bad economic times, higher education is often one of the first state budget categories to be cut and is cut more deeply than other state budget categories due, in part, to its ability to tap into alternative revenue streams. We find that capital outlays do not conform to the balance wheel model. Instead they appear to have a quadratic relationship with other state budget categories. We discuss the policy implications of these findings for both higher education leaders and state policymakers.

From the turmoil and tragedy of the French Revolution to the rise and fall of the enigmatic figure of Napoleon Bonaparte, the history of France between 1789 and 1815 is one of the most enduringly fascinating - and widely-studied - periods of history. In this volume, the renowned historian William Doyle provides a new perspective on several key themes within the history of this period - from the world of the Ancien Regime to the Battle of Waterloo. He sheds new light on the causes of the French Revolution and the impact of the revolution outside France. In taking a fresh look at the Napoleonic Empire, he considers the influences on Napoleon's leadership decisions and the machinations of his court. Written by one of the leading historians of Revolutionary France, this book will be essential reading for anyone interested in the French Revolution and Napoleonic Europe.