The Rant Podcast
A bi-weekly podcast focused on pulling back the curtain on the American higher education system and breaking down the people, the policies and the politics. The podcast host, Eloy Ortiz Oakley, is a known innovator and leader in higher education. The podcast will not pull any punches as it delves into tough questions about the culture, politics and policies of our higher education system.
The Rant Podcast
Golden Returns: Measuring Value in California's Two-Year Colleges
Season four of the Rant Podcast kicks off with a deep dive into educational value and economic mobility. Host Eloy Ortiz-Oakley welcomes returning guest Michael Itzkowitz to discuss their groundbreaking "Golden Returns" report examining which California community colleges and certificate programs deliver the strongest financial returns for students.
The conversation unveils surprising findings about which two-year institutions truly help students climb the economic ladder. Itzkowitz explains how they measured return on investment by comparing attendance costs against earnings premiums, revealing that some institutions enable students to recoup their educational investment in as little as a year through higher earnings. The analysis spans 327 institutions across 12 California regions, recognizing that most community college students choose schools within driving distance of home.
What makes this research particularly timely is its alignment with new federal accountability measures. As Ortiz-Oakley and Itzkowitz discuss, recent legislation will require degree programs to demonstrate that graduates earn more than typical high school graduates – though certificate programs remain exempt despite being analyzed in the Golden Returns report. This accountability gap represents both a challenge and opportunity for institutions and policymakers.
Beyond the data, the conversation explores how institutional leaders are responding to these findings. Some college presidents, like Dr. Keith Curry from Compton College, are using even less-than-flattering results as catalysts for improvement, examining program offerings and workforce alignment. This exemplifies the report's ultimate purpose: not to shame institutions, but to spark meaningful conversations about educational value.
Whether you're a student weighing educational options, an institutional leader seeking improvement strategies, or a policy advocate working toward greater transparency in higher education, this episode offers invaluable insights into the economics of two-year college education. Check out the full Golden Returns report at collegefutures.org to see how institutions in your region perform.
www.collegefutures.org
eloy@4leggedmedia.com
Hi, I'm Eloy Ortiz-Oakley and welcome back to the Rant Podcast, the podcast where we've been pulling back the curtain and breaking down the people, the policies and the politics of our higher education system. Welcome back to now, season four of the Rant podcast. Hard to believe that we began this journey 65 episodes ago and here we are in the 66th episode. I want to thank all of our sponsors that have made the Rant podcast possible. You can visit them on the Rant website. A big thank you to all of them for making this possible. Now, the fourth season. I also want to thank all of you, our listeners and our viewers, whether you're listening to us on your favorite podcast audio platform or watching us here on this YouTube channel. This has now become one of the most watched and most listened to higher education podcasts in the nation, so thank you for making this a success and for bringing us back for a fourth season. I'm looking forward to digging into all the issues once again, whether it's the Trump administration and the impacts on the higher education marketplace, ai and its impacts on how teaching and learning will look now and into the future, the impacts on the workforce and the marketplace, the economy and everything in between. Lots going on, lots of chaos, lots of uncertainty and a huge need for leadership in higher education in this country. So I look forward to digging into these issues and many more with the great guests that we already have lined up, as well as with all of you. Look forward to your feedback, whether in the comment sections of this podcast or the email address that I have in the notes section of the podcast. Please let us know how we're doing, suggest new episodes, new topics or new great guests.
Speaker 1:Today I'm joined by Michael Itzkiewicz Once again. This is the third time Michael's been on the podcast. Michael heads the HEA group and he's been looking at higher education data for his entire career. Michael and the HEA group have once again partnered with College Futures Foundation to issue another report on return on investments, this time focused on California's two-year institutions and certificate-granting institutions two-year institutions and certificate-granting institutions. So we're talking about the California community colleges, other nonprofit institutions that issue associate degrees, as well as the certificate-granting institutions here in California. So, whether they're a private, private, nonprofit or a public institution, we took a look at these institutions and looked at the return on investment. Michael and his team have done a great job once again of breaking down the data showing which institutions are providing California's most underserved learners the best return on investment, and this time we're focused on the two-year institutions and the certificate-granting institutions. You can view the report, called Golden Returns, at the College Futures website at collegefuturesorg Again collegefuturesorg you can download the report as well as all of the data associated with the ROI breakdown.
Speaker 1:So, before I get started in my interview with Michael, I just want to once again thank you all for tuning in. There is so much going on in higher education these days and the landscape is changing by the day. By the time that we publish this episode, I'm sure things will once again change. So we're going to continue to weigh in on these issues, continue to weigh in on the changes that the Trump administration is proposing or forcing upon higher education leaders. We're going to focus on the reaction that the higher education marketplace is involved in, particularly in light of all of the threats to diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or the focus on creating greater value in the higher education marketplace, which is something that the Rant podcast supports. We support getting and digging into the transparency in the higher education marketplace, opening the door to more on-ramps, to a great post-secondary experience, not restricting them. So we're going to continue to lean in on these issues and I hope you join us along the way.
Speaker 1:And with that backdrop, please once again welcome Michael Itzkwitz, president of the HEA group. Michael, welcome back to the Rant Podcast. Hey, eli, how you doing? I'm doing well. It's great to have you back. You are now a regular on the Rant Podcast and, of course, that's because you're doing a lot of great work. So thanks for being back with us and I know many people already know you and know your work. You head HEA Group, which produces a lot of great data, a lot of great analysis group, which produces a lot of great data, a lot of great analysis. And for the purposes of our work with you at College Futures, you've been doing a lot of work for us on highlighting value, and this time in community colleges. We'll talk about that report in a minute, but first let me just ask you how you're doing and what's sort of keeping you up at night these days and all the news from Washington DC. Wow, what's keeping me? What's sort of keeping you up at night these days and all the news from Washington DC?
Speaker 2:Wow, what's keeping me up in the morning is waking up at six o'clock to take my kids back to school at two separate schools. So we are just figuring that out, so I haven't had that much time to think about stuff, but there's a lot keeping me up. But I think, like you, I've been focused on a lot of opportunities as well. So great See some optimism and ways to move forward, and that's why we're here.
Speaker 1:That's why we're here Now. One of the things that we'll talk a little bit about as we talk about the work that you've been doing with Color Futures is one of the headlines recently. Among many is the recently signed into law reconciliation bill and in that bill there is a framework for accountability for higher ed institutions, particularly those institutions that have access to Title IV. A lot of talk about that federal framework, and we'll talk about the way that we measure value, but what are your initial thoughts about the federal framework? Did they get it right? Do we still have work to do?
Speaker 2:I think, in terms of the accountability provision, it is a step forward. There's always room for improvement. But before this, you know, we kind of had something called the cohort default rate, which was put in place in the 1990s when I was seven years old. So perhaps it was time for an update and no one really filled the cohort default rate. It worked very well at the time. We had 20% defaults that went down to single digits, and then people kind of figured out how to game it, even though we see these outcomes that aren't as strong as we would like. So the new accountability framework does move us forward in terms of ensuring better outcomes for some institutions and some programs I would say most institutions and most programs. So specifically, it looks at associate's degree programs or bachelor's degree programs, and it ensures that students will only be able to take out loans if they are making more than the typical high school graduate within their state four years after they graduate the institution.
Speaker 2:It also goes a step further. They look at graduate programs, which is kind of the first of its kind, and they ensure that students are going to be making more than a bachelor's degree recipient in their state within a similar field of study. So you know, these are big things, especially as students are sort of questioning the value of higher education more so than the past. There were some omissions from the bill, specifically certificate programs. So you and I both know, you know we see a need for certificate programs. When they work well, they can be one of the fastest paths to socioeconomic mobility and that's great. When students go to a place, they pay a certain amount, they gain a skill, they enter the workforce and off they go. But they're also some of the most riskiest credentials. So you know, like everything, some bright spots, some areas for improvement, and here we are.
Speaker 1:And here we are, and here we are. I agree with you that this is, I think, at least the right step forward, not the last step, but a first step. Just the fact that we're actually talking about implementing an accountability framework is a huge step, because I think that's been one of the missing pieces. Many of us have been working and supporting increased access for more individuals, particularly low-income individuals, ensuring that there's greater access and capacity at our institutions, and we fueled that through Pell, through access to really uncapped student loan amounts in many cases, particularly at the graduate level, but we didn't think about the accountability for the institutions, and I think that is the next right step. Now, exactly how we get there. I think there's still a lot to be discussed, and I think it's a healthy discussion, but at least we're on our way toward greater accountability, our way toward greater accountability.
Speaker 1:So, speaking of accountability, you have partnered once again with College Futures, this time taking a close look at California's two-year colleges, or community colleges, as well as certificate-grantingutions, and the report is called Golden Returns. Our viewers can check it out on the College Futures website at collegefuturesorg. You can easily get to the report from the homepage. So, michael, this is as opposed to the last report, which created the California Mobility Index and focused on four-year institutions in California. This focuses on two-year institutions and certificate-granting institutions. What are some of the biggest differences, before we get into the results between the two studies?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So the study that we released in February this year was called the California Mobility Index, and what we did is we looked at four-year institutions. So that's one of the main differences when looking at that in comparison to our new Golden Returns report for low and moderate income students at these institutions. We ran a report and analysis a few years back at this point and we saw that there were a lot of institutions that provided a really quick ROI in California, and some at the top of the list were places like Stanford or other very selective institutions. But right next to their name was another number and it was the percentage of low and moderate income students that actually went to those institutions, and it was oftentimes below 20%. So we started thinking and talking well, okay, if you're one of the lucky and few of the fortunate to get in there, you're going to have an amazing ROI. There's no doubt about that. But it's these other institutions that actually serve a broad group of students, bring them in, lift them up and leave them better off than the previous generation. So the California Mobility Index looked at ROI, but then we also incorporated the percentage of Pell to think about which schools are actually enrolling a broad group of students and leaving them better at home. So you know that was fascinating just to see the response and the results that we got on that.
Speaker 2:Now, I guess, six or seven months later, we know that so many students have different pathways, especially in California, when it comes to post-secondary education. So we wanted to look at community and career colleges across the state, specifically focusing on four-year institutions, and within this analysis, you know we were able to look at 327 of these across the entire state. We understand that a lot of these students that go to these colleges typically go within driving distance of where they live or where they work. So we thought it was critical to think about a regional perspective. So we did break it up into 12 different regions throughout the state and we specifically looked at ROI for these colleges so that if you were a student or wanted a better understanding of which institutions are providing a strong ROI within my community, within where I live, who?
Speaker 2:is increasing that. Where can I get the best bang for my educational bond?
Speaker 1:So, before we dive into the two-year, you mentioned a name that has been sticking in my head the last couple of weeks, which is Stanford, and I think this gives a really good example of why we at College Futures feel that this kind of analysis is so important. Stanford, as you mentioned, has a really high ROI for the few in the fortunate that attend but serve a really low percentage of Pell eligible students low-income students as opposed to some of the top performers in that survey were in the Cal State system, particularly places like Cal State, la, which serve a high number of low-income students and have a great return. It strikes me because you may not be following California news these days but a place like Stanford is seriously thinking about continuing its legacy admissions, is seriously thinking about bringing back admissions exams like the SAT and the ACT, which will only further reinforce the findings that we have there. So it's just amazing to me, and I think why this kind of analysis is important right now is for the public to truly understand how its institutions are serving the majority of Californians, and the majority of Californians are low to moderate income Californians. So we want to continue to provide that transparency so that people know the choices that they're making, to provide that transparency so that people know the choices that they're making. Now let's jump into the two years. As opposed to the four-year institutions, there's a lot less variety in terms of the kinds of populations that these institutions are serving. By and large, these institutions are serving a wide swath of low to moderate income learners, and so, as you mentioned, the analysis that you did was by region.
Speaker 1:California is a big state. We broke it down by regions, but we had some really interesting results from top performers. In the Bay Area, for example, skyline College came out number one in this analysis statewide. But we also saw some really strong performers in the San Diego region. Three of the San Diego community colleges came out in the top five in that region. And then, of course, we saw colleges throughout the state who had some really great performance and, of course, as I said, our viewers can check out the full analysis at collegefuturesorg. But we also had two high-performing for-profits Unitech. What do you see as the main similarities of these top performers that came out in your analysis?
Speaker 2:When we were thinking about the study, we wanted to include every option where we had, because students are considering all of these options. So that's public institutions, that's private, nonprofit institutions, that's for-profit institutions. I think there are 121 public institutions within the state that we looked at and most of them are actually private. They're private, nonprofit, private for-profit. We covered 1.2 million undergraduate students within the entire study and they differed very much by region. To your point. I mean, there are some regions where they're very densely populated and therefore they have more options for students to consider.
Speaker 2:Los Angeles region 87 options. That's a tremendous amount of options depending on where you live. Other areas only two options, only one option. So that might be the only choice that students can consider. So what we saw is that within these economic regions, there's a wide disparity in terms of the outcomes that students can get for one of these investments of time and money that's supposed to lead them to a better life. So, like many other of our analyses, when we're looking at the data, we just see how critical it is that we lead students to make the right first step. That can have a tremendous impact on their trajectory. And ultimately, we want a more competitive California workforce. We want a more competitive American workforce and we also know that so many jobs are going to require some sort of post-secondary education Even within the next five years. I think it's over 70%, so it's just really critical to get this information in the hands of students and parents as they're considering these options.
Speaker 1:Well, we certainly agree with that. Now, this analysis, as you mentioned, is about time and money. It's really strictly a return on investment. Look, can you break down the methodology that you used here in this analysis?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so, like you said, we generally know students do come from all over the place, but they're typically low and moderate income students who populate these institutions. But we wanted them to have a good sense of how much they're paying and what kind of return are they going to get on their investment. So first we looked at something called net paying and what kind of return are they going to get on their investment. So first we looked at something called net cost and that's generally how much students are paying out of pocket. After all, grants and scholarships are deducted, this could be a Cal Grant, this could be a Pell Grant. It takes that into account and says how much left over do I have to pay, whether that's your personal finances or through federal loans that many have to finance their education and or living expenses through. But then how much more are you making by attending an institution in the first place? That's something that we call an earnings premium and specifically we looked at how much students are making at the college 10 years after they've enrolled, in comparison to the typical high school graduate in California who is aged between 25 and 34 years old, and we can see through census data, those students, that comparison group of high school graduates. They make about $32,400 a year. So you have to make more than that and everyone expects to make more than that if they go and attend a post-secondary institution.
Speaker 2:So, just as an example, one school we looked at I think the largest community college in California, american River College. It costs about $9,200 to get a degree within two years. If you finished in the year is $4,600 a year, something like that. But we can also see that students who attend that college earn about $7,500 more. So in order to recoup those $9,200 in out-of-pocket costs, if you're making $7,200 or so, it's going to take you about 1.2 years. So that's how we evaluated all of these institutions. That's based off of how much students pay relative to the additional earnings they get, and we're able to have a good understanding of how long it takes them to recoup those costs.
Speaker 1:Now, given the new federal framework that we will be talking more about in the coming months, how does this kind of analysis compare to the kind of analysis that the federal government will use to judge whether a program of study is creating enough value to qualify for access to the student loan program?
Speaker 2:So we've been working on this for a while now, before that bill was signed into law, and it uses very similar metrics and I think that that can be very informative to the field, as they're being proactive to make sure that their programs are performing the way that they want them to and ensuring that their students, their graduates, are earning more than that threshold which we use and is the same actually in the new federal law. Our comparison for high school students, high school graduates, within the state that the institution is located, age between 25 and 34 years old, we use data from the federal government through the Department of Education. That's what they use. That's $32,400 in California. So in the big, the great big bill, or whatever it is, officially it's the same Different names depending on where you're coming from, right, yeah?
Speaker 2:But it's written the same. You know, it's this comparison group that was written by, I think, mostly Republican senators and then passed through the House Right, and it's something that's generally agreed upon. I mean, this is pretty bipartisan in nature in terms of ensuring good outcomes for students and taxpayers alike. So I think that this is, again, you know, the beginning of a conversation which institutions, policymakers, systems can use as a helpful starting point. You know the analysis that we put out and then, of course, they have to start looking internally at their programs and looking at the outcomes for all different kinds of students in all different kinds of programs.
Speaker 1:I agree. I think it is an excellent tool for institutional leaders to begin to look at their own programs. Look at this analysis gives them a bit of a foreshadowing of how they will be measured in the future. Now, one of the things that you mentioned that's missing from the federal framework are certificates. So the federal framework would not look at certificate-granting institutions in the same way we did in this report. Is that correct?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean it's programmatic in the federal bill, so our analysis is specifically focused on institutions how well these institutions perform, regardless of which program that they're in form, regardless of which program that they're in. We can see so many institutions community colleges and private colleges alike now focusing a lot on certificate programs. So if they offered a certificate program, they would be exempt from ensuring those outcomes that are present within the federal bill and federal statute. If they offer associate's degree programs, which many have a mix nowadays, specifically community colleges then they would be held accountable and have to ensure that those students are at least earning that.
Speaker 1:Well, particularly at a time when the federal government is opening the aperture to short-term Pell and other certificate-type programs of study, I'm sure that the call for more accountability and transparency in certificates will ramp up. That's certainly something that we would support at College Futures. So we'll see where this all goes, but I think this is again a great analysis for institutions in California to begin looking at their programs of study. And while we're talking a lot about accountability, I mean the issue here as well is transparency and more and better information for the consumer, the learner, the learner and their family, so that when they're making choices, they have better information on which programs of study will lead to the kind of outcome that they're hoping to see.
Speaker 1:And let's be frank, 99% of people entering these institutions or these programs of study have something at the top of their head which is improving their economic stability, improving their economic outcome, and we, as educators, that's what we sell. So we broke this down by region. Why is it important that we look at this analysis by region? I know you mentioned one example, which is most students go to a community college or a certificate-granting institution within driving range or within a bus route of their home. What are some of the other reasons that you found is important to break this down by region.
Speaker 2:I think it was a TICA study a while back and it showed the average distance that students travel to get to college is 17 miles Two-thirds of students travel within 50 miles of their house.
Speaker 2:So that's number one. Number two California is like a whole country within itself. It's very different. There's different spots, there's different opportunities, there's different kinds of industry. So it makes a lot of sense to think about regionality because it can have different costs of living. It's going to cost very you know, a very different amount in one area in comparison to San Francisco, where no one can.
Speaker 2:So you know, we had to think about this and take these things into account and that was one of the main considerations. And you know, again, we looked at our friends, calcompetes, their regional lab. So we kind of took the lead on that as an example of how we could break this down regional. And this was a first step and you know we've gotten a lot of great feedback since then. You know people are thinking about this, people are talking about it, they're thinking about other ways to measure ROI and student performance. So you know, I would say that this is exactly what we wanted. I'm not the smartest person in the world, but there are many other smart people in the state of California who are thinking about this and you know it's so encouraging to think about where we can go.
Speaker 1:Well, I agree and my team agrees. That's exactly why we wanted to get this information out there. Yes, we have a methodology that we partner with you to use and very similar to the methodology that folks in DC have been thinking about and now trying to put into motion. Even in the Biden administration, similar methodology was being used to highlight low-value programs. So this isn't anything new that you've done. We've just really tightened the lens and focused it on California institutions. Now, you mentioned a lot of people are talking about this.
Speaker 1:Certainly, I've heard a lot of internal chatter here in California. I've heard from my good friends in states like Arizona and others about some of the shortcomings, and so we welcome that conversation. Are there shortcomings? Yes, I'm sure that there are, but that's why we want to force this conversation. We want states to really think about how to better measure.
Speaker 1:What kind of data do we need to do a better job of measuring? Because certainly, as somebody who was born and raised in California, there is a wide variety of access to good paying jobs available, depending on the kind of career pathway you take, than, say, the Inland Empire or the Imperial Valley. So part of this analysis also highlights the importance of aligning with local workforce, the importance of institutions working with employers, with other organizations in the region. I think the fact that three San Diego community colleges showed good results is a testament to the work that they've been doing in San Diego to align the workforce for many, many, many years. So how do you see some of the workforce issues or the availability of jobs in a region playing into the outcomes that we're seeing?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I love that. I mean so. Through Georgetown Center for Education and Workforce, we can see that there's a huge misalignment between the credentials that are being awarded relative to the jobs that will be available. So it's sort of a wake-up call at this point. But we also are an opportunity to think about that a little deeper and I'm excited by the conversations I've heard about these next steps. You know, just as an example, there are 87 institutions, community and career colleges in Los Angeles. This was at an institution level. This analysis no-transcript.
Speaker 2:So I've heard so many leaders talking about this and about that next step. How do we get to that next step? How do we think about alignment? There are so many other benefits of colleges that we all realize and recognize More likely to vote, more healthy, more happy, so many things. But if students are making enough to make ends meet, how would we expect them to be civically engaged when they don't have time? They're working two jobs. It's just not going to happen. How are we going to expect them to be healthy? How are we going to expect them to be as happy as we want them? So this is really a minimum threshold that we're talking about here, and so many other folks are way beyond that.
Speaker 1:It is a minimum threshold but, as you said, you know our focus in this analysis, as well as the mobility index at College Futures, our focus is on those underserved learners in California college futures. Our focus is on those underserved learners in California, and this is the population of learners that is absolutely struggling in this economy, in the workforce, and our institutions need to be there to do a much better job of helping lift them up. Because, as you said, it's really hard to participate in civic life, to stay healthy, to be a participant in democracy, if you're struggling to make ends meet, if you can't find a place to live, and it's no surprise that this frustration that people feel leads to being attracted to a more populous message from politicians. So I think if we put a tighter lens on this, shine a brighter light on this, in addition to other important outcomes like completion, like persistence, like access, this has to be one on the same playing field and I really love the way that one of our college presidents has reacted, dr Keith Curry from Compton College. His institution wasn't one of the top performers, it's sort of in the middle of the pack or near the bottom third of the pack, but he took this as a call to action, really thinking about how he works with his academic leaders, his student success leaders, thinking about how to dig into their programs of study and using this in a positive way, not in a way to cast dispersions on the institution or its leadership, but to actually use this as a rallying call. So I hope more leaders think about it that way, to actually use this as a rallying call. So I hope more leaders think about it that way.
Speaker 1:Now let me ask you one last question as we begin to wrap up. A lot of states are working to improve career connections. Workforce connections create more value from their institutions. Everywhere, from Texas to Kentucky to Alabama, state after state is really thinking about how does it use data to improve the transparency, to improve outcomes. California is in that same boat with the cradle to career data system that it recently launched. What advice do you have for researchers in this space or institutional leaders in this space hoping to improve on this kind of analysis? What additional data do you think they need?
Speaker 2:Yeah, at this point, my advice would be don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Speaker 2:You know, you were talking about. Well, our study could be improved upon. Like I wish, I was in the shower and I said I just found the best way to evaluate institutions. That's the answer. And if you work through this data like, you know that there are so many limitations, but you also can get to a point where it's extremely action, and that's where we ended up. So I would love to see more clear data, more understandable data for people that aren't academics, for people that are academics, for people that are researchers, so that if you're a college president who's dealing with a hundred issues, you can have information in front of your face and at least begin the conversation. So I would love to see more clear and accessible information throughout states and within individual regions, throughout those states.
Speaker 1:Well, I hope for the same. I think this is a great first step forward. We here in California want to continue to build on this. The data that you use for golden returns is available to the public. If there are better ways to look at this data, then we are certainly open to those suggestions. But in the meantime, please take the time to take a look at the Golden Returns report and the analysis behind it. So, michael, once again, thank you for partnering with College Futures on this report. Thank you for shining a light on the data and helping us see return on investment in a way that we really hadn't focused on it before. And thank you for being on the Rant podcast. Once again, it's a pleasure. Thank you, eli.
Speaker 1:All right, you've been listening to my conversation with Michael Litzkowitz. He heads the HEA group, which partnered with College Futures to publish a report called Golden Returns. You can access the report at collegefuturesorg. I'll put the link to the website in the notes section of the podcast. If you're watching us on YouTube, please hit subscribe. Continue to follow us. And if you're listening to us on your audio podcast, continue to follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for joining us, everybody, and we will see you all soon, thank you.
