A national study conducted by the Institute for a Competitive Workforce attempted to show the states that were “leaders and laggards” across different measures like cost effectiveness and meeting market demand.
Our four-year institutions received a C grade for student access and success with an average enrollment level of nearly 22 percent for Pell grant recipients, eight points below the national average for four year schools. Wisconsin four-year schools did receive good marks for efficiency with the cost of completion averaging to almost $63,000, $5,000 less than the national average.
But on those fronts, the two-year colleges scored quite differently.
Wisconsin’s two-year institutions earned an A for student access and success, with 46 percent of students receiving Pell grants and a 31 percent completion rate, which is more than ten points above the national average for two-year schools. But they also received an F for efficiency and cost effectiveness. The study found that the cost of completing a degree was around $71,000, more than $16,000 above the national average and in the bottom ten.
The study found that in Wisconsin, if you include funding from the government and from tuition, it costs more to receive a degree from a two year school than a four year school. Nationally it’s the opposite.
Both four-year and two-year institutions received low marks, a D and F respectively, for accountability and transparency because, like most states, Wisconsin does not report information about labor market outcomes nor does it measure student learning.
Wisconsin’s policy environment also has room to improve. Because of a lack of higher education formal goals, a lack of explanation for students trying to transfer credits between schools, and no form of outcomes-based funding, which in other states rewards schools for high degree or course completion rates, the state received a D.
But Wisconsin’s biggest sour spot was innovation, receiving an F for openness to online service providers who develop programs for schools across state lines. In other words, we have relatively high costs, a hefty approval process, and heavy regulation for providers that could potentially bring new ideas to a pretty bureaucratic public education system.
-Samy Moskol
