Opportunity Engines: Middle-Class Mobility in Higher Education

SarahReberRubensteinFellow,BrookingsInstitution

ChenoahSinclairResearchAssistant,BrookingsInstitution

May 2020

Introduction InequalityintheUnitedStateshasbeenrisinginrecentdecades,whileintergenerationalmobilityremainslow.Thismeansthatabsolutemobility—theextenttowhichchildrenareeconomicallybetteroffthantheirparents—isdeclining,andintergenerationalinequalityisincreasinglyentrenched.Alongliteraturesuggestslargereturnstoattendingcollegeandpointstotheimportanceofhighereducationforintergenerationalmobility.RecentworkbyOpportunityInsightsexploresinmoredetailtherolethatdifferentcollegesplayinpromotingupwardmobility,pointingtosignificantdifferencesacrosscollegesintheextenttowhichtheyenrollstudentsfromlow-incomefamilieswhohavehighearningsasadults.Here,weusethedataproducedbyOpportunityInsightstofocusspecificallyonstudentsfrommiddle-classfamiliestounderstandpatternsofattendanceandupwardmobilityforthemiddleclass.

BuildingontheCollegeScorecardDatacompiledbytheU.S.DepartmentofEducation,theOpportunityInsightsMobilityReportCardsusede-identifieddatafromtaxreturns,linkedtoinformationaboutcolleges,toconstructapubliclyavailabledatabaseforcollegesintheUnitedStates.AlthoughtheyprovidemanymeasuresintheMobilityReportCards,theOpportunityInsightsteamfocusesprimarilyonupwardmobilityforthelowest-incomestudents—thosewhoseparents’incomefallsinthebottomquintile—andonthelikelihoodthatthosestudentsmakeitallthewaytothetopearningsquintileasadults.This“Bottom-to-Top"measureofmobilityisimportant,butitisnotthewholestory.Itisimportanttoalsoconsidertheprospectsforstudentsfromabroaderrangeoftheincomedistribution,andinparticularfrommiddle-classfamilies.

TheBottom-to-TopMobility(BTM)measuredependsonbothhowmanybottom-quintilestudentsacollegeenrolls(bottom-quintile“access”)andwhatproportionofthoseenrolledbottom-quintilestudentsreachthetopearningsquintileinadulthood(“success”).Collegeswithlowaccessforbottom-quintilestudentshaverelativelylowBTMevenifthosewhodoenrollhavehighupwardmobility;conversely,collegeswherelow-incomestudentsarenotupwardlymobilehavelowBTMeveniftheyenrollmanylow-incomestudents.

WedevelopananalogousmeasureofMiddle-ClassMobility(MCM),focusingonupwardmobilityforstudentsfrommiddle-incomefamilies.Ourmeasureistheshareofstudentsatacollegewhocomefromthemiddlequintileoftheparentalincomedistribution—andmoveupatleastonequintileinadulthood.(Notethatthroughoutthispaper,weusetheterm“middleclass”torefertothemiddlequintile.)Wealsoadjustthismeasuretoaccountfordownwardmobilityandfortypicalmobilityamongstudentswhodonotattendcollegeatall,discussedfurtherbelow.

Key Findings • Middle-ClassMobilityvariessubstantiallyacrosscolleges.

• CollegeswithhighBottom-to-TopMobilitydonotnecessarilyhavehighMiddle-ClassMobility,andvice-versa;thecorrelationbetweenthetwomeasuresisjust0.26.

• Selectivefour-yearcollegeshavethehighestratesofMiddle-ClassMobilityonaverage,followedbynonselectiveandhighlyselectivefour-yearcolleges,thentwo-yearandfor-profitcolleges.

• Publicandprivatefour-yearcollegeshavesimilaraverageMiddle-ClassMobilityrates,butpublicfour-yearscontributesubstantiallymoretoupwardmobilityoverallbecausetheyenrollmanymorestudents.

• Two-yearcollegesaccountforasmallershareoftotalMiddle-ClassMobility(31percent)thantheirshareofmiddle-classenrollment(43percent).Butper-studentinstructionalspendingislowerandstudentsinthesecollegesspendfeweryearsincollege,onaverage,sothesectornonethelessaccountsforalargeshareofnetupwardmobilitycomparedtoitsshareoftotalspending,just11percent.

• Conversely,highlyselectivecollegesaccountforadisproportionateshareofnetupwardmobilitycomparedtoenrollment.Buttheyhavehighper-studentinstructionalexpenditure,sotheyaccountforalargershareofspendingthanMiddle-ClassMobility.

• Selectivefour-yearcollegesaretheworkhorsesofupwardmobilityforthemiddleclass,accountingfor34percentofmiddle-classenrollment,50percentofspendingonmiddle-classstudents,and43percentofMiddle-ClassMobility.

Background Intergenerational mobility is low in the United States Thefactthatchildrenfrompoorfamiliesarelikelytobepooradults,whilechildrenluckyenoughtobeborntowell-offparentstendtogrowuptobewell-offadultsiswell-established.Figure1showsthispatternusingtheOpportunityInsightsdataforthecohortsanalyzedinthisreport.Thefigureshowstheadultearningsquintileforchildrenwhostartineachquintileofparentalincome.Ifadultearningsdidnotdependonparentalincome—thatis,ifintergenerationalmobilitywerehigh—eachbarwouldlookthesame,showing20percentineachadultearningsquintileregardlessofparentalincomequintile.Infact,thebarslookquitedifferent,suggestingsignificantpersistenceineconomicoutcomesacrossgenerations.Forexample,thefirstbarshowsthatamongthosegrowingupwithparentswhohadthelowestincome(thebottom20percentofthedistribution),only9percentreachedthetop20percentoftheearningsdistributionasadults,and31percentdidnotexperienceanyupwardmobility,earninginthebottom20percentasadults.Bycontrast,therightmostbarshowsthatforchildrengrowingupwithparentsinthetop20percentoftheparentalincomedistribution,37percentwereinthetop20percentoftheearningsdistributionasadults.Andonly13percentofchildrengrowingupwiththemost-affluentparentsendedupinthebottomearningsquintileasadults.Americans’chancestomakeit

tothetopoftheeconomicheap,oreventhemiddle,dependsignificantlyontheincomeoftheirparents.

Figure2showstheintergenerationaltransitionmatricesforthosewhoneverattendedcollege,attendedcollegelaterinlife,andattendedcollege“on-time”(betweenages19and22).Itshowssignificantlymoreupwardmobilityforchildrenfromlow-incomehouseholdswhoattendedcollege.Forexample,42percentofpeoplewhoseparentswereinthebottomquintileandwhodidnotgotocollegehadadultearningsinthebottomquintile,comparedtojust24percentwhoattendedcollegelaterinlifeand16percentforthosewhoattendedcollegeon-time.Forthosestartinginthemiddleoftheparentalincomedistribution,collegeattendanceisassociatedwithahigherlikelihoodofstayinginthemiddleoftheearningsdistributionormovingup.Thisisconsistentwithalonglineofresearchshowingthatobtainingacollegeeducationboostsearnings.

Whenitcomestoreachingthetop20percentoftheearningsdistribution,however,theimportanceofbeinganon-timeattenderbecomesclear.Amongpeoplewhoseparentswereinthebottomquintile,18percentofon-timeattendersreachedthetopquintileinadulthood,comparedto5percentoflate-attendersand4percentofnon-attenders.Asimilarpatterncanbeseenforpeoplefrommiddle-classfamilies:25percentofon-timeattendersreachedthetopquintileinadulthood,comparedto9percentoflate-attendersand8percentofnon-attenders.Whilethoseattendingcollegelaterinlifehaveadultearningsoutcomesmoresimilartonever-attendersthanon-timeattenders,late-attendersaresubstantiallylesslikelytoendupinthelowestadultearningsquintile.Thesepatternsarepartiallyattributabletodifferencesinothercharacteristicsofthosewhoattendcollegeon-time,laterinlife,ornotatall,butattendingcollegelaterinlifemayoffersomeprotectionagainstlowearnings,evenifitisunlikelytolaunchastudenttothetopoftheearningsdistribution.

Unfortunately,youngadultswhogrowupinlower-andmiddle-classfamiliesaremuchlesslikelytoattendcollegeon-timeoratall,comparedtotheirmoreaffluentpeers.Figure3showsthedistributionofyoungadultsacrosscollegeattendancecategoriesbyparental

income.Therelationshipbetweenparentalincomeandcollegeattendanceratesisstrong:onlyone-thirdofthosefromthelowest-incomefamiliesattendcollegeon-time.Attendanceratesincreasesharplywithparentalincome,withjustoverhalfofchildrenofmiddle-quintileparentsheadingofftocollegeon-time,comparedto87percentforthosefromthetop-quintile.Someofthisgapismadeupslightlylaterinlife,aschildrenoflower-incomeparentsaremorelikelytoattendcollegelaterinadulthood.Still,largesharesoflow-andmiddle-incomechildrennevergoontoattendcollege,andFigure2suggestslateattendershavebetteroutcomesthannever-attenders,butdoworsethanthosewhoenrollincollegeshortlyafterhighschoolgraduation.Researchsuggeststhatthesegapsarenotfullyexplainedbydifferencesinacademicpreparation.Infact,low-scoringstudentsfromaffluentbackgroundsareaboutaslikelytograduatefromcollegeashigh-scoringstudentsfromlow-incomefamilies.

Moreover,evenamongstudentswhodoenrollincollegesoonafterhighschoolgraduation,theselectivityandtypeofcollegeattendeddependsstronglyonparentalincome.Figure4showsthatlow-andmiddle-incomestudentsarepredominatelyservedbytwo-yearcollegesandnonselectivefour-yearcolleges,whereashigher-incomestudentsaremorelikelytoattendselectiveandhighlyselectivefour-yearcolleges.Thisisconsistentwiththe

researchliteratureshowingthatchildrenofhigher-incomefamiliesaremorelikelytoattendcollege,andtoattendmore-selectivecolleges,comparedtotheirmiddle-classandlow-incomecounterparts.

A Middle-Class Mobility Measure WedevelopameasureofmobilitysimilarinspirittoChettyetal.’sBottom-to-TopMobility(BTM)measurebutadaptittofocusonstudentsfromthemiddleoftheparentalincomedistribution.WebeginbydescribingthedataChettyetal.useandhowtheyconstructBTMbeforeturningtohowwemodifythisapproachtoconstructourownMiddle-ClassMobility(MCM)measure.

Data Wedonothaveaccesstotheindividual-level,de-identifiedtaxdatausedbyChettyetal.intheiranalysis,sowearelimitedtothedatatheymakepublicthroughOpportunityInsights.Fortunately,thepublic-usedatasetincludesawiderangeofinformationaboutcollegesthatwecanuseinthisanalysis.ThissectiondetailshowtheOpportunityInsightsteam

constructedthecollege-levelvariablesusedinthisanalysis;interestedreaderscanconsultthefulldocumentationandthispaperformoreinformation.

Sample TheOpportunityInsightsteamconstructedcollege-levelstatisticsusingde-identifiedtaxfilings.ThesampleincludedallindividualsintheU.S.whohaveavalidSocialSecurityNumberorIndividualTaxpayerIdentificationNumber,werebornbetween1980and1982,andcouldbelinkedtoatleastoneparentinthetaxdata.Childrenwerelinkedtoparentsbasedonthemostrecenttaxfilerstoclaimthechildasadependentduringtheperiodwhenthechildwas12–17yearsold.Ifthechildwasclaimedbyasinglefiler,thechildisdefinedashavingasingleparent.About2percentofchildrenwereneverclaimedasdependentsandwereconsequentlyexcludedfromtheanalysis.1

Ouranalysisnecessarilyfocusesonoldercohortsbecauseweneedtimetoseehowtheyfareinthelabormarket.Thecohortsrepresentedinthesedatalargelyattendedcollegepriortorecentexpansionsofthefor-profitsector,2whichwasaccompaniedbyincreasinglypredatorypractices.Mobilitymeasuresforthefor-profitsectorshouldthereforebeinterpretedwithcaution.

Identifying where students attend college OpportunityInsightsprovidescollege-levelestimatesofattendancederivedfromtwosources:federaltaxrecordsandDepartmentofEducationrecordsfrom1999to2013.TheyusedatafromForm1098-T—aninformationalreturnfiledbycollegesforeachenrolledstudentforthepurposesofreportingtuitionpayments—andPellgrantrecordstodeterminewhetherandwhereeachpersonenrolledincollege.Astudentisconsideredtohaveattendedacollegeinaschoolyearifshehasa1098-TfiledbythecollegeorreceivedaPellgrantthatyear.Studentswhoattendedmorethanonecollegeareassignedtothecollegeattendedmostfrequentlybetweentheagesof19and22;ifastudentattendedtwoormorecollegesforthesamenumberofyears,sheisassignedtothefirstcollegeattended.

The1098-TformsidentifyeachcollegebyitsEmployerIdentificationNumber(EIN)andZIPcode.Importantly,somecollegesfiletheseformsformultiplecampusesusingasingleEIN-ZIP,inwhichcasewecannotdistinguishbetweencampusesinthesamesystem.Forexample,theUniversityofMarylandreportsunderasingleEIN-Zipcode,lumpingtogether

1Theshareofchildrenwhocanbesuccessfullylinkedtoparentsdropssignificantlywhenlookingatbirthcohortsbefore1980.ThisisbecausethefederaltaxdatausedbyChettyetal.tomeasureparents’andchildren’sincomesbeginsin1996,andmanychildrenleavethehouseholdstartingatage17.Consequently,Chettyandcolleagueslimittheiranalysissampletochildrenborninorafter1980.Thisrangeisrestrictedfurtherinthepublic-accessdata,wheredataareonlyavailableforchildreninthe1980-‘82birthcohorts,withsupplementarydataprovidedfromthe1983and1984cohortswheninformationforacollegeforoneofthesecohortsisincomplete.

2Between1986and2009,enrollmentwithinfor-profithighereducationinstitutions(FPHEIs)grewfrom2%tomorethan10%ofallstudentsenrolledininstitutionsofhighereducation(Liu,2011).Furthermore,thepercentageofundergraduatesattendingFPHEIsmorethandoubledbetween1995and2012,from5%to13%overallandfrom1%to17%in4-yearFPHEIs(NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,2017).

studentswhoattendanyofits15campuses.OtherlargesystemstowhichthislimitationappliesincludetheUniversityofTennessee,UniversityofIllinois,andUniversityofMinnesota. Weexcludetheseaggregatedcampusesfromtheanalysis.

Measuring parental income and adult earnings Childrenintherelevantcohortsarelinkedtoparentswhoclaimedthemasadependent,asdiscussedabove.DataontheincomeofparentsandtheearningsofchildrencomefromfederalincometaxreturnsandW-2formstocaptureincomeforthosewhodonotfiletaxreturns.Parentincomeisdefinedastotalpre-taxincomeforthehousehold,whichincludesbothearningsandotherformsofincome(suchasinterestpaymentsandgovernmentbenefits).Theyaverageparentalincomeforthefiveyearswhenthechildisaged15–19toobtainameasureofresourcesavailablewhencollegeattendancedecisionsaretypicallybeingmade.Childrenarethenassignedtoparentalincomequintilesbyrankingthemonthismeasurerelativetootherchildreninthesamebirthcohort.

Earningsinadulthoodforthesechildrenaredefinedastotalpre-taxindividualearnings.Unliketheincomemeasureforparents—whichaccountsfornon-wageformsofincomelikeunemploymentbenefitsandinterestpayments—thismeasureisrestrictedtoearnings,definedasthesumofwagesandnetself-employmentearnings.Theearningsofchildrenweremeasuredin2014whentheywerebetween32and34yearsold,lateenoughtofinishtheirschoolingandgainsomeexperienceinthelabormarket.Theywereassignedtoearningsquintilesbyrankingthemrelativetoothersinthesamebirthcohort,regardlessofcollegeattendancestatus.

TheOpportunityInsightsteamusethesedatatocountthenumberofstudentsineachcollegewhocomefromeachparentalincomequintileandreacheachadultearningsquintile.Weusethesecollege-levelcountsinouranalysis.FollowingChettyetal.,werestricttheanalysistocollegeswithanaveragecohortsizeofatleast200forthe1980to1982birthcohorts;thisexcludes416institutionsthataccountfor2.8percentofallstudents.

College Characteristics

WeusedatafromtheIntegratedPostsecondaryEducationDataSystem(IPEDS)database3andtheCollegeScorecardmadeavailablethroughOpportunityInsights.4UsingtheBarron’sselectivityrankingprovidedintheCollegeScorecarddataasaguideline,wegroupcollegesintothefollowing5selectivitytiers:

3IPEDSisasystemofinterrelatedsurveysconductedannuallybytheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.Thesurveyscontaindataonenrollment,programcompletion,graduationrates,facultyandstaff,finances,institutionalprices,selectivity,andstudentfinancialaidforallinstitutionsthatparticipateinfederalstudentaidprograms.

4Weusethe“selectedcharacteristics”file.

• HighlySelectiveFour-Year:Four-yearcollegesbelongingtotheeliteandhighlyselectiveBarron’sselectivitycategories.

• SelectiveFour-Year:Four-yearcollegesbelongingtothe3rdand4thBarron’sselectivitycategories.

• NonselectiveFour-Year:Four-yearcollegesbelongingtothe5thandnonselectiveBarron’sselectivitycategories,aswellasfour-yearcollegeswithmissingBarron’srankings.

• Two-Year:Alltwo-yearcollegesandlessthantwo-yearcollegesthatarenotfor-profit.

• For-Profit:Alltwo-yearandfour-yearfor-profitcolleges.WeusetheIPEDSdatatoclassifycollegesintosectorsbasedonhighestdegreeofferedandwhethertheyarepublic,privatenon-profit,orfor-profit:

• PrivateFour-Year:Private,non-profitcollegesthatofferafour-yeardegree.• PublicFour-Year:Publiccollegesthatofferafour-yeardegree.• Two-Year:Publicandnon-profitcollegesthatdonotofferafour-yeardegree,

includingthosethatonlyoffercertificateprograms.Inpractice,thevastmajorityofthesecollegesarepubliccommunitycollegesthatoffertwo-yeardegrees.

• For-Profit:Allfor-profitcolleges,regardlessofhighestdegreeoffered.Opportunity Insights’ Bottom-to-Top Mobility measure OurMCMmeasurebuildsconceptuallyontheBTMmeasureemphasizedbyOpportunityInsights.BTMistheshareofacollege’senrollmentthatisbothfromthebottomquintileofparentalincomeandinthetopquintileofadultearnings.Ithastwocomponents:

• Accessistheshareofacollege’senrollmentthatcomesfromthebottomquintile.Ittellsushowmanylow-incomestudentsacollegeserves,comparedtototalenrollment.

• Successistheshareofbottom-quintilestudentsatacollegewhomakeittothetopquintileoftheadultearningsdistribution.Ittellsushowlow-incomestudentsdo,conditionalonenrollinginacollege.

• MobilityisequaltoAccessmultipliedbySuccess.

Table1illustratesthiscalculationforseveralcolleges.Forexample,atHarvard,only3.0percentofenrollmentisfromthebottomquintileoftheparentalincomedistribution(bottom-quintileaccess).Amongthosestudents,57.7percenthaveadultearningsthatputtheminthetopquintileoftheadultearningsdistributionfortheircohort(bottom-to-topsuccess).Thisimpliesthat1.8percentofHarvard’stotalenrollmentcomesfromthebottomparentalincomequintileandisinthetopearningsquintileinadulthood.SUNY-StonyBrookhasaslightlylowersuccessrateof51.2percent,butbottom-quintilestudentscompriseamuchlargershareofenrollment(16.4percent),yieldingaBTMrateof8.4percent.WrightCareerCollegeprimarilyserveslow-incomestudents,soithasahighbottom-quintileaccessrate(42.1percent).However,only1.1percentofbottom-quintile

studentswhoattendWrightmakeittothetopquintileoftheadultearningsdistribution,soWrighthasamobilityrateofjust0.5percent.

Table1.CalculatingBottom-to-TopMobilityforselectcolleges Q1Access

↓ P(Parentin

Q1)

X

SuccessRate↓

P(ChildinQ5|ParentinQ1)

=

UnadjustedMobilityRate↓

P(ChildinQ5&ParentinQ1)

HarvardUniversity

3.0% X 57.7% = 1.8%

SUNY-StonyBrook

16.4% X 51.2% = 8.4%

WrightCareerCollege

42.1% X 1.1% = 0.5%

A new measure of Middle-Class Mobility ToconstructourmeasureofMiddle-ClassMobility,weusethesameapproachdescribedabove,butwedefineaccessandsuccessinwaysthataremorerelevanttothemiddleclass.AlthoughtheFutureoftheMiddleClassInitiativedefinesthemiddleclassasthosefallinginthemiddle-threequintilesoftheincomedistribution,wefocusexclusivelyonthethirdquintile.Thissimplifiestheanalysiscomparedtoconsideringquintiles2,3,and4,andproducesasimilarpicture.5Webeginbydefiningaccessandsuccessforthemiddleclass:

• Accessistheshareofacollege’senrollmentcomingfromthethirdquintileoftheparentalincomedistribution.

• Successistheshareofthird-quintilestudentsattendingacollegewhomoveupatleastonequintilenettheshareofstudentswhofallatleastoneearningsquintile.Bythismeasure,acollegehasapositive“success”measureifmoreofitsthird-quintilestudentsmoveupthanmovedown.

Somechildrenfromlow-incomefamilieswillbeupwardlymobiledespitenotattendingcollege;thosewhoseparentsareinthebottomincomequintilecannotbedownwardlymobilebydefinition,andsomewillevenmakeittothetopearningsquintileinadulthoodwithoutattendingcollege.Figure2showsthat4percentofnon-attendersfromthebottomparentalincomequintilewereinthetopearningsquintileasadults.AsChettyetal.note,ahypotheticalcollegethatenrolledonlystudentsfromthebottomquintile(bottom-quintile

5Interpretingbothaccessandsuccessmeasures—andthereforemobilitymeasures—forthemiddle-threeincomequintilesproveddifficult.Forexample,acollegemighthavelowermiddle-three-quintileaccessbecauseitenrollsmanybottom-quintilestudentsorbecauseitenrollsmanytop-quintilestudents,andtheequityimplicationsofthosealternativesarequitedifferent.Mechanically,thepossibilityofupwardordownwardeconomicmobilityalsovaryconsiderablyacrossthemiddle-threequintiles(childrenfromthesecondquintilehavemoreroomtomoveupthanchildrenfromfourth-quintilefamilies),anditisnotobvioushowtoweightdifferentquintiletransitionstomakeasingle“success”measure.FocusingonthethirdquintilesimplifiestheinterpretationoftheMCMmeasure.

accessof100percent),4percentofwhomhadadultearningsinthetopquintile(bottom-to-topsuccessof4percent),wouldhaveaBTMrateof4percent,wellabovetheaverage,eventhoughbottom-quintilestudentsweredoingnobetterthanstudentswhodidnotattendcollegeatall.Theyadjustforthisbysubtractingthebottom-to-top“success”ofnon-attendersfromeachcollege’ssuccessrate.Bythismeasure,acollegeonlygets“credit”forupwardmobilitythatexceedstheaveragemobilityamongnon-attenders.

Chettyandcolleaguesusethisadjustedmeasureinrobustnesschecksbutfinditmakeslittledifferencebecausecollegeswithveryhighaccessratesforbottom-quintilestudentsarerare.However,thisadjustmentmattersmoreformeasuringMiddle-ClassMobility.Onaverage,studentsfromthethirdquintileofparentalincomewhoneverattendcollegefallintheearningsdistributionrelativetotheirparents’positionintheincomedistribution;theaveragenetmobilityrateformiddle-classnon-attendersisabout–29percent.Thatis,substantiallymorenon-attendersfrommiddle-classfamiliesaredownwardlymobilethanupwardlymobile.Followingthelogicdescribedabove,we“netout”theaveragemobilityofnon-attendersinourmeasureofsuccessforthemiddleclass.Forcomparability,weusetheadjustedmeasureofBTM,ratherthanthemainmeasureChettyandcolleaguesuseintheiranalysis.Themeasureswithandwithoutthisadjustmentarehighlycorrelated,buttheadjustmentaffectsourcomparisonsacrosssectorsandselectivitytiers,particularlyforthemiddleclass,soweusetheadjustedversioninouranalysis.

Table2showshowthisadjustmentaffectsthecalculationsinTable1.Theaccessmeasureisthesame,butthesuccessmeasureisreducedby3.9percentagepoints—theaverage“success”forthosewhodon’tattendcollege.Themobilityrateisalsoreduced.

Table2.CalculatingadjustedBottom-to-TopMobilityrateforselectcolleges Q1

Access

X

AdjustedBottom-to-TopSuccessRate

=

AdjustedBottom-to-TopMobilityRate

HarvardUniversity 3.0%

X 53.9%

= 1.6%

SUNY-StonyBrook 16.4%

X 47.4%

= 7.8%

WrightCareerCollege 42.1%

X -2.7%

= -1.1%

Table3illustratesthecalculationofourMiddle-ClassMobilityrate.AtHarvard,studentsfromthethirdquintileoftheparentalincomedistributioncomprise8.1percentoftotalenrollment(middle-classaccess).Amongthosestudents,56.6percentmoremoveupatleastonequintilethanmovedownatleastonequintile.Butamongstudentswhodon’tattendcollegeatall,successbythismeasureisnegative28.9percent(moremovedownthanup),soweadd28.9to56.6percenttogettheadjustedmiddle-classsuccessrateforHarvard.Thiscanbeinterpretedasnetupwardmobilityforthird-quintilestudentswhoattendHarvard,comparedtonetupwardmobilityforthird-quintilestudentswhonever

attendcollege.MultiplyingaccessbythismeasureofsuccessyieldstheMiddle-ClassMobilityrate.

Table3.CalculatingMiddle-ClassMobilityRateforselectcolleges Middle-Class

Access

X

Middle-ClassSuccessRate

=

Middle-ClassMobilityRate

HarvardUniversity 8.1%

X 85.5%=

(56.6%+28.9%)

= 6.9%

SUNY-StonyBrook 16.1%

X 83.5%=

(54.6%+28.9%)

= 13.5%

WrightCareerCollege 16.5%

X -10.4%=

(-39.3%+28.9%)

= -1.7%

Figure5showshowthe(adjusted)Bottom-to-TopMobilitymeasurerelatestothenewMiddle-ClassMobilitymeasureforallcolleges.CollegeswithhigherMiddle-ClassMobilityalsohavehigherBottom-to-TopMobility,onaverage,buttherelationshipisnotverystrong.Thecorrelationis0.26.Figure5alsoshowssubstantialvariationinMCMacrosscolleges.Aninteractiveversionofthisfigureallowstheusertofindaspecificcollege,orfilteroncategoriesofcolleges,toseehowcollegesstackuponthesemeasures.

The“success”measures—andthereforethemobilityrates—reflectdifferencesacrosscollegesbothinwhoattendsthecollegeandthecausalimpactofthecollegeitself.Implicitly,thesuccessmeasurescompareoutcomesforstudentswhoattendedaparticularcollegetooutcomesfortheaveragestudentwhoneverattendedcollege.Variationinthismeasureacrosscollegescouldbeduetodifferencesinwhichstudentscollegesacceptandenrollordifferencesintheeffectofattendance.ThecalculationsinTable3showthatmiddle-classstudentswhogotoHarvardhavesimilarupwardmobilitytothosewhoattendStonyBrook,butthosewhoattendWrightdomuchworse;infact,theyhaveworseoutcomesthanstudentswhoneverattendcollege.PartofthedifferenceinoutcomesforstudentsattendingHarvardandStonyBrook,ontheonehand,andWrightontheother,isalmostcertainlypartiallyduetodifferencesincharacteristicsofstudentswhoattendeachcollege,suchasacademicpreparationorstudyskills.Intheiranalysis,Chettyandcolleaguesshowthat,conditionalonattendingthesamecollege,outcomesareremarkablysimilaracrossthedistributionofparentalincome;theyarguethedatasuggestasubstantialshareofvariationinsuccessacrosscollegesisduetodifferencesinthecausalimpactofcollegesratherthanselection.Nevertheless,itisimportanttokeepinmindthatdifferencesacrosscollegesinsuccess—andthereforemobility—reflectdifferencesinbothselectionandimpact.

Differences in mobility across different types of colleges Figure5showsthatMCMvariesconsiderablyacrosscollegesandisonlyweaklycorrelatedwithBTM. Inotherwords,thecollegeswiththemoststudentsmovingfromthebottomrungoftheeconomicladdertothetoparenotnecessarilythesameastheoneswiththemoststudentsmovingupfromthemiddlequintile.

Dosomecollegeshavesystematicallyhigherorlowermobilitydependingonhowselectivetheyareortheirsector?Weaddressthisquestionbyanalyzingaveragemobilitybythesecharacteristics;wealsoexaminethetwocomponentsofmobility—accessandsuccess—tobetterunderstandthereasonsfordifferencesinmobilityratesfordifferenttypesofcolleges.

Middle-Class Mobility by college selectivity tier Studentsfromlow-incomefamiliesattendcollegesthatarelessselective,onaverage,comparedtomiddle-andhigher-incomestudents(Figure4).Figure6showshowaccess,success,andmobilityforbottom-quintileandmiddle-classstudentsvarydependingoncollegeselectivity.Thefirstpanelshowsaveragebottom-quintileandmiddle-quintileaccess—theshareoftotalenrollmentthatcomesfromthosequintiles—foreachselectivitytier.Thesecondpanelshowsaveragesuccess,andthefinalpanelshowsmobility —whichincorporatesaccessandsuccess.(NotethatFigure6showstheproportionofstudentsfromeachquintileenrolledininstitutionsineachcategory,whileFigure4showstheproportionfromeachquintileenrolledineachtypeofinstitution.)

Theleftpanelshowsthatforstudentsfromthebottomquintile,accessincreasesasselectivitydeclines.Onaverage,lessthan5percentofstudentsinhighlyselectivecollegescomefromfamiliesinthebottomquintile,comparedto22percentinfor-profitcolleges.Asimilarrelationshipholdsforstudentsfromthemiddleclass,thoughitislesspronounced.Onaverage,about11percentofstudentsinhighlyselectiveinstitutionscomefromthemiddleclass,comparedto22percentinfor-profits.

Themiddlepanelshowsaverage“success”byselectivitytier.Recallthatforthebottomquintile,successisdefinedasmakingittothetopquintileoftheadultearningsdistribution(asinChettyetal.);forthemiddleclass,wedefinesuccessasnetupwardmobility;inbothcases,wenetoutthesuccessrateofnon-attenders,asdescribedabove.Forstudentsfromthebottomquintile,themore-selectiveschoolshavesignificantlyhighersuccessrates.Amonglow-incomestudentswhoattendhighlyselectivefour-yearcolleges,44percentmakeittothetopearningsquintileinadulthood.Asimilarpatternisobservedformiddle-classstudents.

Thelastpanelshowsthemobilitymeasures.Amongfour-yearcolleges,BTMisrelativelyconstantacrossselectivitytiers.Thisisbecausedifferencesinaccessandsuccessoffset

eachother.Forexample,selectiveandnonselectivefour-yearshavesimilarmobilityrates(.017and.016,respectively),butselectivefour-yearcollegeshavehighersuccessandloweraccess,whereasnonselectivefour-yearcollegeshavehigheraccessandlowersuccess.Amongtwo-yearcollegesandfor-profits,averageBTMratesareslightlylower,whichislargelyattributabletotheirweaksuccessrates.

IntermsofMCM,selectivefour-yearcollegeshavethehighestmobilityrates,onaverage,followedbynonselectiveandhighlyselectivefour-yearcolleges,thentwo-yearcollegesandfor-profits.AswithBTM,accessandsuccessaresomewhatoffsetting—butnottoquitethesamedegree.Selectivefour-years,forexample,havebothhighaccessandhighsuccess,explainingtheirhighaveragerateofMiddle-ClassMobility.

ThefirsttwopanelsinFigure6underscorethatthesimilarityofmobilityratesacrossselectivitytiersobscuresthedifferingcontributionsofaccessandsuccess.Unfortunately,thetypesofinstitutionswherelow-incomeandmiddle-classstudentsaremostlikelytobesuccessful—highlyselectiveandselectivefour-years—aretheleastaccessible,whereastheschoolsatwhichthesestudentscaneasilyenrollareassociatedwiththepoorestlabor-marketoutcomes.

Middle-Class Mobility by college sector Figure7showshowaccess,success,andmobilityvarybysector,definedas:

• Private(non-profit)four-year• Publicfour-year• Two-year6• For-profit(includingtwo-yearandfour-year)

ThefirstpanelofFigure7showsthat,withtheexceptionoffor-profits,studentsfromthebottomquintilemakeupasmallershareofenrollmentacrossallsectors,comparedtomiddle-classstudents.Accessforbottom-quintilestudentsissignificantlyloweratfour-yearcolleges,particularlythosethatareprivate,comparedtotwo-yearorfor-profitcolleges.Asabove,differencesinaccessandsuccessforbottom-quintilestudentsarelargelyoffsetting,soBTMrates(thirdpanel)aresimilaramongfour-yearcollegesandtwo-yearsandfor-profits.

6Private,non-profittwo-yearcollegesarerare(lessthan2percentoftwo-yearcolleges),sowecombinethemwithpublictwo-years.

Formiddle-classstudents,accessfollowsasimilar,butlesssteeppattern,andsuccessforbothpublicandprivatefour-yearcollegesissubstantiallyhigherthanfortwo-yearandfor-profitcolleges,onaverage.MCMrates(lastpanel)varymoreacrosssectorsthandoBTMrates.AswithBTM,four-yearcollegeshavehighermobilitythantwo-yearsorfor-profits,butthefour-yearadvantageislargerforthemiddleclass,comparedtothebottomquintile.

Accounting for upward mobility TheresultspresentedinFigures6and7showhowaccess,success,andmobilityratesvarydependingoncollegecharacteristics.TheMiddle-ClassMobilitymeasureindicateswhatshareofacollege’senrollmentisbothfromthemiddleclassandupwardlymobile.However, holdingconstantacollege’smobilityrate,acollegethatenrollsmorestudentsoverallwillcontributemoretoupwardmobilitythanacollegethatenrollsfewerstudents.

Weaccountforthesedifferencesincollegesizebycalculatingthenumberofupwardlymobilestudentswhoattendeachcollegeandexamininghowtotalupwardmobilityis

distributedacrosscollegesofdifferenttypes.7Thetotalnumberof(net)upwardlymobilestudentsfromthemiddlequintilebyourdefinitionaveragedapproximately160,000percohort.Wethencalculatethecontributionofeachcollegetothattotal,asdemonstratedinTable4:Harvardhas1,609studentspercohort,8.1percentofwhomcomefromthethirdparentalincomequintile—30students.Amongthird-quintilestudentsatHarvard,netupwardmobilityis85.5percentagepointshigherthannetupwardmobilityfornon-attenders.Harvardthereforeaccountsfor111ofthe160,000upwardlymobilemiddle-classstudentsbythismeasure.StonyBrookhasbothhigheraccessforthemiddlequintileandhigherenrollmentoverall,soitcontributesmoretoupwardmobility,despitehavingaslightlylowermiddle-classsuccessrate.Wrighthasanegativesuccessrate—meaningstudentsenrolledtheredoworsethanstudentswhodon’tattendcollegeatall—buttheydon’tenrollmanystudents,sotheir(negative)contributionissmall.

Table4.Calculatingcolleges’contributiontooverallMiddle-ClassMobility

Q3Access

X Cohortsize

= NumberofQ3

students

X AdjustedMiddle-ClassSuccessRate

= Numberof

SuccessesHarvardUniversity

8.1%

X 1,609 = 130 85.5%

X 111

SUNY-StonyBrook

16.1% X 2,070 = 333 83.5% X 278

WrightCareerCollege

16.5% X 249 = 41 -10.4% X -4

Thecostsassociatedwithdifferenttypesofcollegesalsovarysubstantially,bothbecauseper-pupil,per-yearinstructionalspendingissignificantlyhigherinmore-selectiveinstitutions,onaverage,andbecausestudentswhoenrollintwo-yearcollegesenrollforfeweryears,onaverage,thanthoseenrolledinfour-yearcolleges.Wecalculatetheestimatedcostassociatedwithbottom-quintileandmiddle-classstudentsateachcollege;thiscalculationisnecessarilyapproximatebutneverthelessallowsforaroughcomparisonoftotalspendingtoenrollmentandupwardmobilitybytypeofcollege.8

7Asabove,wenetouttheaverageupwardmobilityrateforstudentswhodon’tattendcollege.Thenumberofupwardlymobilemiddle-classstudentsatacollegeisthesuccessmeasuretimesthenumberofmiddle-classstudentsthecollegeenrolls.Inotherwords,itisthenumberofadditionalstudentswhomovedupatleastonequintilecomparedtowhatwouldbeexpectedbasedontransitionsamongnon-attenders.

8Wemultiplyenrollmentintherelevantquintile(bottomorthird)byper-pupilinstructionalspendingin2000asreportedinIPEDS;wescalethatby1.5for2-yearcollegesand4for4-yearcollegestoaccountforthedifferentaveragetimesstudentsspendincollegeineachsector.Theseestimatesarenecessarilycrude,asthe

Figure8showstheshareofenrollment,spending,andmobilityacrossselectivitytiersforbothbottom-quintileandmiddle-classstudents.Forexample,highlyselectivefour-yearcollegesaccountfor5percentofbottom-quintileenrollment,21percentofestimatedinstructionalspending,and17percentofBottom-to-TopMobility.Forbottom-quintilestudents,two-yearcollegesaccountfor49percentofenrollment,15percentofestimatedspending,and28percentofupwardmobility.

Thesecondsetofbarsshowsthesameestimatesformiddle-classstudents.Forthemiddleclass,selectivefour-yearcollegesaccountforthelargestshareofupwardmobility–43percent–whichisdisproportionaterelativetotheirenrollmentshareof34percent,butslightlylessthantheir50percentshareofestimatedspending.Two-yearcollegesaccountforthelargestshareofenrollment—43percent—butonly11percentofspendingand31percentofupwardmobility.

typicalnumberofyearsstudentsattendmayvaryacrosscollegesandtheinstructionalspendingistheaverage,notmarginal,cost.Nevertheless,thisback-of-the-envelopecalculationcangiveussomesenseofhowspendingisdistributedacrosstypesofcolleges.

ThepatternsinFigure8forbottom-quintileandmiddle-classstudentsaresimilar,thoughmiddle-classstudentsaresomewhatmorelikelytoattendselectiveandhighlyselectivefour-yearcollegesandlesslikelytoattendtwo-yearcolleges.Highlyselectivecolleges’contributiontoupwardmobilityisdisproportionaterelativetotheirenrollment,butstillsmallduetotheirsmallenrollmentshare.Highlyselectivecollegesspendmoreperstudent,sotheirshareofmobilityisalsolowerthantheirshareofspending.Two-yearcollegesaccountforlargesharesofenrollmentbutsmallsharesofspending—asstudentsspendlesstimeenrolledandspendingperstudentislower—andmoderatesharesofupwardmobility.Selectivefour-yearcollegesaccountforthelion’sshareofupwardmobility—butanevenlargershareofspending.

Figure9showsthesameanalysisbysector.Thetwo-yearandfor-profitcollegesaredefinedasinFigure8,butherewedividefour-yearcollegesnotbyselectivitybutbywhethertheyarepublicorprivate.Publiccolleges,includingtwo-yearandfour-yearcolleges,accountforalmost80percentofupwardmobilityonbothmeasures.Thisfollowsfromthesimplefactthatmoststudentsattendpubliccolleges.Privatecollegesaccountforadisproportionatelylargeshareofupwardmobilityrelativetotheirenrollment,buttheyalsohavehighinstructionalspending.Publicfour-yearcollegesaretheworkhorsesofupwardmobility,accountingforlargesharesofenrollment,spending,andupwardmobility.Buttwo-yearcollegesprovidealotof“bangforthebuck”,sincetheyhavelowspending.For-profitsofferupwardmobilityroughlyproportionaltotheirenrollment,thoughtheydidn’tenrollmanystudentsinthesecohorts.Again,itisimportanttonotethatthesecohortspre-dateaconsiderableexpansioninthefor-profitsectorandincreasingconcernsaboutpredatorypractices.

Discussion Attendingcollegeisassociatedwithupwardmobilityforstudentswhogrowupinlow-incomeandmiddle-classfamilies.Butnotallcollegesofferthesameopportunitiesforupwardmobility,andwhetherandwhereyoungadultsattendcollegedependsheavilyontheirparents’income.Inthispaper,wedevelopanewmeasureofMiddle-ClassMobility,incorporatingmeasuresofbothaccessforthemiddleclassandupwardmobilityconditionalonattendance.WeshowthattheextenttowhichdifferentcollegescontributetoMiddle-ClassMobilityvariesconsiderablyacrossselectivitytierandsector,butalsowithineachcategory.TheaccompanyinginteractiveshowsMCMandBTMmobilityratesforindividualinstitutions.Althoughouranalysisdoesnotidentifycausalpathwaysthatcanbemanipulatedtoimproveoutcomesformiddle-classstudents,itdoeshighlightseveralpatternsofinteresttopolicymakers.

Thecollegeswiththebestoutcomesformiddle-classstudents,namelyselectiveandhighlyselectivefour-years,aretheleastaccessibletypesofinstitutionsforthesestudents.Ontheotherhand,two-yearcollegesarequiteaccessible—enrollingnearlyhalfofmiddle-classstudents—buttheirstudentsdonotexperiencethesameupwardmobility,comparedtothoseenrollinginfour-yearcolleges.NewresearchfromOpportunityInsightsshowsthatthesedifferencesarenotfullyexplainedbydifferencesinSAT/ACTscores.Low-andmiddle-incomestudentsattendless-selectivecollegesthantheirhigherincomepeersevenwhentheyhavethesametestscores.Whilethebetteroutcomesenjoyedbystudentswhoattendmore-selective,four-yearcollegesaredueinparttodifferencesinacademicpreparation,researchsuggeststhatatleastpartofthedifferenceisacausaleffectofcolleges:studentsbenefitfromaccesstomore-selectivecolleges.

Collegesattendedbylower-andmiddle-incomestudentsalsospendmuchlessperstudent,comparedtothemore-selectivecollegesattendedbytheiraffluentpeers.Instructionalspendinghasbeenshowntohavelarge,positiveimpactsondegreecompletion.Ontheonehand,therelativelylowspendingattwo-yearcollegesandfour-yearpublicsmeansthatthoseinstitutionsoffervalue.Ontheotherhand,thoseinstitutionshavelowcompletionrates,sothelargelylow-andmiddle-incomestudentstheyservewouldlikelybenefitfromhigherspending.PolicymakersshouldbeespeciallymindfultoprotecttheseinstitutionsfromdeepcutsinresponsetotheCOVID-19crisis.

TheteamatOpportunityInsightssuggestchangestoadmissionspoliciesatselectivefour-yearcollegestoimproveaccess.Weagree.Buttheeffectivenessofthisstrategyforimprovingupwardmobilitycouldbelimitediflow-andmiddle-incomestudentsfaceotherbarrierstoenrollmentorifthosecollegesfailtodeliverthesamebenefitwhentheybecomemoreaccessible.Policymakersshouldbeatleastasconcernedaboutboostingsupportforthecollegesalreadyservingmillionsoflow-incomeandmiddle-classstudents,especiallypublictwo-yearandmoderatelyselectivefour-yearcolleges.

Segregationofhighereducation—wherethechildrenfromlow-andmoderate-incomefamiliesattendless-selective,under-resourcedcolleges,andhigher-incomepeersattendbetter-resourcedcolleges,regardlessoftheirtestsscores—actsasadragonintergenerationalmobility.Acombinationofchangesinpoliciestoreducesegregationandinequalityoffundingacrosshighereducationisurgentlyneededtorealizethepromiseofhighereducationasanengineformiddle-classmobility.

References

Bailey,M.J.,&Dynarski,S.M.(2011).Gainsandgaps:ChanginginequalityinUScollegeentryandcompletion.NationalBureauofEconomicResearch(No.w17633).

Björklund,A.,&Jäntti,M.(2009).Intergenerationalincomemobilityandtheroleoffamilybackground.Oxfordhandbookofeconomicinequality,491,521.

Bleemer,Z.(2018).TopPercentPoliciesandtheReturntoPostsecondarySelectivity.AvailableatSSRN3272618.

Chetty,R.,Hendren,N.,Kline,P.,&Saez,E.(2014).Whereisthelandofopportunity?ThegeographyofintergenerationalmobilityintheUnitedStates.TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics,129(4),1553-1623.

Chetty,R.,Grusky,D.,Hell,M.,Hendren,N.,Manduca,R.,&Narang,J.(2017).ThefadingAmericandream:Trendsinabsoluteincomemobilitysince1940.NationalBureauofEconomicResearch(No.w22910).

Chetty,R.,Friedman,J.N.,Saez,E.,Turner,N.,&Yagan,D.(2017).Mobilityreportcards:Theroleofcollegesinintergenerationalmobility.NationalBureauofEconomicResearch(No.w23618).

Chetty,R.,Friedman,J.,Saez,E.,Turner,N.,&Yagan,D.(2020).TheDeterminantsofIncomeSegregationandIntergenerationalMobility:UsingTestScorestoMeasureUndermatching.NBERWorkingPaper(No.w26748).

Corak,Miles(2006).Dopoorchildrenbecomepooradults?Lessonsfromacrosscountrycomparisonofgenerationalearningsmobility,IZADiscussionPapers,No.1993,InstitutefortheStudyofLabor(IZA),Bonn.

Corak,M.(2013).Incomeinequality,equalityofopportunity,andintergenerationalmobility.JournalofEconomicPerspectives,27(3),79-102.

Deming,D.J.,&Walters,C.R.(2017).TheimpactofpricecapsandspendingcutsonUSpostsecondaryattainment.NationalBureauofEconomicResearch(No.w23736).

Dynarski,S.(2015).ForthePoor,theGraduationGapIsEvenWiderThantheEnrollmentGap.TheNewYorkTimes.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upshot/for-the-poor-the-graduation-gap-is-even-wider-than-the-enrollment-gap.html

Goldstein,D.,&Hartocollis,A.(2020).ASimpleWaytoEqualizetheIvies?GiveOtherstheLegacySATBonus.TheNewYorkTimes.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/SAT-bonus-ivy-league.html.

Greenstone,M.,&Looney,A.(2012).Regardlessofthecost,collegestillmatters.BrookingsonJobNumbers,BrookingsInstitution.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/10/05/regardless-of-the-cost-college-still-matters/.

Greenstone,M.,Looney,A.,Patashnik,J.,&Yu,M.(2013).Thirteeneconomicfactsaboutsocialmobilityandtheroleofeducation.BrookingsInstitution(report).https://www.brookings.edu/research/thirteen-economic-facts-about-social-mobility-and-the-role-of-education/.

Haskins,R.,Holzer,H.,&Lerman,R.(2009).Promotingeconomicmobilitybyincreasingpostsecondaryeducation.BrookingsInstitution(report).https://www.brookings.edu/research/promoting-economic-mobility-by-increasing-postsecondary-education/.

Holzer,H.J.,&Baum,S.(2017).Makingcollegework:Pathwaystosuccessfordisadvantagedstudents.BrookingsInstitutionPress.

OpportunityInsights(2020).DataLibrary.https://opportunityinsights.org/data/?geographic_level=0&topic=0&paper_id=536#resource-listing.

Reeves,R,&Guyot,K.(2018).Therearemanydefinitionsof“middleclass”—here’sours.BrookingsInstitution(blog).https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/09/04/there-are-many-definitions-of-middle-class-heres-ours/.

Reeves,R,&Guyot,K.(2019)....Andjusticeforall:Communitycollegesservingthemiddleclass.BrookingsInstitution(blog).https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/13/and-justice-for-all-community-colleges-serving-the-middle-class/.

Reeves,R,&Venator,Joanna(2014).SavingHoratioAlger:TheDataBehindtheWords(andtheLegoBricks).BrookingsInstitution(blog).https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/08/21/saving-horatio-alger-the-data-behind-the-words-and-the-lego-bricks/.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation(2015).TheCollegeScorecard.https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data/.