Critical Issues Paper-Return on Investment

Running head: RETURN ON INVESTMENT 1

Return on Investment: The Impact of College Affordability on Career Services Offices
EDLD 707-01: Introduction to Higher Education - Critical Issues Paper
Laura Stittsworth
University of St. Thomas
11/30/2014

RETURN ON INVESTMENT 2
Introduction
The affordability of higher education impacts the work of career development
services on college campuses. The ever-increasing cost of college causes many families
to question the value of the college degree. As the average student loan debt continues to
rise, many are contemplating their return on investment and the likelihood of students
finding meaningful work after college. These questions have led to increased pressures
on colleges to prove their value in order to maintain enrollment and stay in business. This
pressure has, in turn, changed the scope of how college career development offices have
had to approach their work in assisting students.
In order to address this complex issue, historical considerations of the functional
area of career services and college affordability must be examined. In addition, it is also
essential to consider the role assessment plays in the governance process, ensuring
quality of services, and ultimately, justifying value of a college degree. Finally, best-
practices and recommendations for adapting to the changing world of college career
services will be discussed.
History
Purpose of Career Services on College Campuses
According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE)
Principles of Professional Practice, the primary goal of college career centers includes
“helping students choose and attain personally rewarding careers, and helping employers
develop effective college relations programs which contribute to effective candidate
selections for their organizations” (“Principles for Professional Practice,” NACE, 2012).

For practitioners, this includes coaching students through the career development
process, which begins with helping students understand themselves (i.e. their skills,
strengths, interest areas, values, needs, and personality types), helping them identify
potential majors and/or career areas that fit who they are, assisting with the decision-
making process, gaining experience in a field or industry, preparing for the job search
process (i.e. resume, cover letter, interview prep, networking, etc.), and even career
management (Sharf, 2006 & “Professional Competencies for College and University
Career Services Practitioners,” NACE, 2013).
In addition to career counseling, most college career centers are responsible for
building connections with outside constituencies, managing information systems,
marketing and promotions, programming administration, assessment practices, teaching,
and overall management and administration, all of which contribute to the mission of
helping students navigate the career development process and find meaningful work after
college (“Professional Competencies for College and University Career Services
Practitioners,” NACE, 2013).
To be clear however, these responsibilities do not include directly “placing”
students in positions after college; career centers are meant to prepare students to secure
positions, not do it for them. Despite this distinction, current economic trends have
influenced the landscape of higher education and ultimately, the role career services
practitioners play in the job search process.
Reality of Finding Work After College
Unfortunately, finding a job after college has become increasingly difficult for
many graduates. Prior to the recession of 2008, earning a bachelor’s degree was typically

enough to secure meaningful work after college. Today is a different story. According to
the 2014 NACE, Spotlight on Careers Report:
Recent unemployment figures released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics indicate a stagnating, if not regressing, college labor market.
The unemployment rate for bachelor’s degree holders aged 20 to 24 (an
indicator for recent college graduates) stood at 8.7 percent for January
2014. This was 0.7 percent higher than the unemployment rate for the
same group in January 2013. It marked the 10th
time in the past 11 months
that the unemployment rate for young college graduates has been greater
than the monthly unemployment rate in the previous year. Prior to this
trend beginning last spring, the year-to-year change in the monthly
unemployment rate for young college graduates had declined in 16 out of
the previous 18 months (“Unemployment Data Reveals Flat College Labor
Market”, NACE, 2014).
In another report, Staklis and Skomsvold (2014) found that “the unemployment rate of
2007-08 bachelor degree recipients (9 percent) was higher than for those who attained
their degrees in 1992-93 and 1999-2000 (4 percent and 5 percent, respectively)” (p. 3). In
addition “[t]he different labor market conditions of the years examined in this study
meant that the three cohorts faced different employment prospects as they sought and
began their first jobs as college graduates” (Staklis & Skomsvold, 2014, p. 2). Clearly,
finding work after college is challenging for graduates in today’s market.

Another side effect of the economic downturn and increasingly competitive job
market includes the rising cost of college and ultimately, soaring student loan debt
averages.
College Affordability
College affordability has been a widely discussed topic within higher education.
Although the published prices of college have continued to increase past the rate of
inflation, one also must consider financial aid contributions, student loan debt, and the
average income level of college graduates:
With the price of college rising faster than the prices of most other goods
and services, despite the high financial payoff to college, people perceive
themselves as giving up increasing amounts of other things to pay for
college. Even more important is the reality that real incomes have not
increased for more than a decade, except at the top of the income scale.
Much of the growth in the earnings gap between college graduates and
high school graduates has been the result of declining wages at the lower
end of the distribution, as opposed to increases for those with a college
education (CollegeBoard, 2014, p. 7).
Therefore, even though the net cost of college has not risen dramatically, higher student loan
debt and stagnant wages have increased the financial burden on college graduates. This is
illustrated through Woo’s (2013) key findings on student borrowing and loan repayment:
The percentage of recent college graduates who borrowed for their
undergraduate education was higher in each successive cohort (49, 64,
and 66 percent, respectively, among graduates in 1992-93, 1999-2000,

and 2007-08), though the difference between the first two cohorts was
greater than the difference between the middle and latest cohort. Likewise,
the average cumulative debt (in constant 2009 dollars) from all sources
increased in each successive cohort, from $15,000 to $22,400 to $24,700
(p. 4).
Whether lower college affordability is a perception or a reality, this phenomenon
is affecting the way families view higher education.
College Admissions and Enrollment Patterns
Regardless of the actual cost of college, the rising “sticker price” of college
combined with increasing average student loan debt is causing many families to question
the return on investment of a college education (Breneman, 1996; Harvey, 2014;
Peterkin, 2012; and Strauss & Howe, 2005). Students and their families have begun to
“shop for colleges” as consumers, taking cost and financial aid packages into
consideration (Harvey, 2014; and Saunders, 2014). From a Career Services standpoint,
this phenomenon has caused added pressure for career centers to achieve and report
higher placement rates, so families can feel justified in their students’ decisions to enroll
in college. In their report on university enrollments and labor-market realities, Vedder,
Denhard, and Robe (2013) identified that the labor-market is saturated with over-
educated and under-employed graduates, and projected that “rising college costs and
perceived declines in economic benefits may well lead to declining enrollments” (p. 1). If
this projection is true, the impact of college affordability could cause a damaging spiral
effect. Figure 1 below illustrates the potential spiral effect of lower college affordability

on the college admissions and financial aid process, college enrollment, operating budget,
institutional support for college career services, and student outcomes:
Accountability and Assessment
These trends have ultimately resulted in added pressure for institutions of higher
education (i.e. Career Services Offices) to focus on accountability by regularly reporting
data on post-college employment. Many for-profit institutions and certificate programs
have been required to comply with Gainful Employment Regulations, which tie access to
financial aid to a school’s success in preparing students for employment in a recognized
Figure 1: Potential Spiral Effect of Low College Affordability
Rising tuition and student loan debt àlower enrollment numbers à limited budget
and institutional support for college career centers à added challenge in providing
quality career services for students à lower student outcomes post-graduation, which
would be reflected in assessment numbers à effects how families view the school
during the admissions process.

occupation post-graduation (“Career Colleges Get New (and Improved) Gainful
Employment Regulations. (Cover story),” Educational Marketer, 2011). While intent of
Gainful Employment was meant to hold institutions accountable, the success of such
regulations is still being evaluated. For non-profit institutions, this has meant more
thorough assessment metrics.
Assessment in Career Services
Within the functional area of Career Services, assessment plays a role in
institutional accountability (Wright, 2014); measuring student learning outcomes;
justifying the need for institutional support for staffing and programming needs; and
helping with college admissions and enrollment. As recommended by NACE, one tool
that is commonly used among college career services offices is the First Destination
Survey:
NACE recognizes the important public discourse regarding the escalating
cost of higher education and the perceived returns on the significant
investment in time, effort, and resources expended by college students and
their families. This is reflected in part, for example, by the White House’s
College Scorecard initiative. The association further acknowledges the
growing importance of institutional outcome assessment efforts as they
relate to improving higher education organizational performance and
achieving regional and academic program accreditation standards. In
support of these vital issues, NACE expects that all higher education
institutions will assess the career and employment outcomes for their
graduates through a first-destination/post-graduation survey. These

surveys are designed to understand more about the employment and
continuing education goals and activities of college graduates, providing
important information to help inform prospective students and their
families as well as the general public about post-graduation
outcomes. (“Position Statement: First-Destination Surveys,” NACE,
2012).
To aid in this assessment practice, NACE published a set of standards for
practitioners to follow when implementing First-Destination Surveys, which can
be found on their general webpage (“First-destination survey standards and
protocols,” NACE, 2014). Kent State University also published an assessment
manual including several tools that are used in their career center, including an
annual graduate survey; employer survey; student user survey; weekly
appointment tracking monitor; student interview evaluation; recruiter evaluation;
career course questionnaire and evaluation; workshop evaluations; and counseling
intake and evaluation forms (Baumgartner, 1994). Assessment provides data on
how career centers can better improve student services and serves as a for guide
decision-making and resource allocation on college campuses.
Decision-Making on College Campuses: Mission & Governance
In addition to assessment outcomes, an institution’s mission and strategic plan are
integral to its governance and decision-making processes. The mission guides the goals
that institutions set for students by the time they graduate. The strategic plan takes the
mission of the institution into consideration and then aligns division recourses with
institutional priorities (Ellis, 2010). When institutional priorities align with career

outcomes, naturally, career centers tend to receive more institutional support. This
support can be in terms of hiring additional staff or providing additional programming
funds. However, as mentioned earlier, many schools also rely on enrollment numbers to
support institutional funding. If colleges have limited funds to support career centers,
regardless of the strategic plan, this could highly affect the quality of career development
services being provided to students.
Best Practices & Recommendations
In order to operate effectively under tight budgets, career services practitioners
should follow the following best practices and recommendations: Routine and purposeful
assessment, thinking innovatively to increase efficiency, collaborating with cross-campus
partners, and building solid connections with community employers and alumni.
Routine and Purposeful Assessment
It is clear that professionals in higher education need to take assessment seriously,
for more than just accreditation and funding purposes. With the ever-increasing costs of
tuition, we owe it to our students to deliver quality education that provides meaningful
learning experiences inside and outside of the classroom. We also owe it to society as a
whole. Our world is diversifying, and it is our job as educators to prepare students, and
future professionals, for the future ahead – the only way we can know this is happening,
is through ongoing assessment of our academic and co-curricular efforts. According to
the NACE (2014) Guidelines for Internal and External Review of Career Services,
practitioners should follow ground rules when implementing assessment practices which
include:

• Implementing a process that is clearly focused on quality enhancement
rather than pass/fail;
• Demonstrating commitment to continuous improvement of processes,
programs, and services;
• Involving as many of the career services staff as possible in the self-
assessment process;
• Building mutual trust among team members so that conflicts and
differences of opinion can best be resolved in the best interest of the
institution;
• Ensuring that ratings given for each criterion are fully substantiated by
evidence and documentation;
• Identifying unit strengths and weaknesses, and developing a meaningful
plan for improvement that can be communicated effectively to multiple
constituencies (p. 5).
Innovation and Efficiency
Professionals need to find innovative and efficient ways to work on a limited
budget with limited staff. Often times, limited staff directly effects appointment wait
times for students, as schedules fill up quickly. Training student workers, employing
graduate assistants, or hiring part-time coaches can build capacity. Additionally, adding
drop-in hours and mini-workshops can help staff meet with more students in an efficient
way. Another way to save on operating costs includes going paperless. Many offices
utilize solely online-based resources, social-media and web-based marketing strategies,

and create reusable resources. By thinking creatively, career services offices can
maximize effectiveness while minimizing costs.
Campus Partners
Building solid relationships with campus and community partners can help any
student services office get things done more efficiently:
Colleges and universities have an important mission, and this mission is
best accomplished when campus professionals share a vision and
coordinate their efforts to help realize it. Campus leaders have the
responsibility to create and support an infrastructure that helps members
in their institutions take pride in their accomplishments and face their
challenges (Allen, 2004, p. 164).
Cross-campus partnerships provide an avenue for all higher education professionals to
collaborate and ensure student learning and success on campus.
Community and Alumni Connections
Finally, in addition to providing high quality services for students, career services
professionals must maintain solid relationships with community employers and alumni
who can connect students to internship and job opportunities. It is widely known in the
field that the majority of people find jobs through networking opportunities, so the more
exposure students have to potential employers, the better their odds are for finding
meaningful work after college. This can be a challenging task for offices with limited
resources and staff, so it is essential to create sustainable ways of maintaining these
relationships.

Future Considerations
With the current state of higher education, it will be important for all career
services practitioners to pay attention to how the affordability of college compares to the
job market, and ultimately how that relationship impacts students in finding meaningful
work after graduation. Continuous, intentional, and thorough assessment practices will
help career services offices justify their work, advocate for institutional support, and
identify areas for improvement. Finally, practitioners must think creatively, innovate, and
work efficiently in order to maintain the standards of the profession and ensure positive
student outcomes. While it is not the responsibility of career services professionals to
directly “place” students in jobs, we can work together to create opportunities for
students to build connections with potential employers and successfully navigate the
career development process on their own.

References
Allen, M. J. (2004). Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA:
Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Baumgartner, D. (1994). The Career Services Center Assessment Manual. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/?id=ED370017
Breneman, D. W. (1996). Affordability and the private institution. Educational Record,
77, 14.
Career Colleges Get New (and Improved) Gainful Employment Regulations. (Cover
story). (2011). Educational Marketer, 42(12), 1–4. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.stthomas.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dir
ect=true&db=keh&AN=61355970&site=ehost-live
CollegeBoard. (2014) Trends in higher education series: Trends in college pricing 2014.
Retrieved from https://secure-
media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/misc/trends/2014-trends-college-pricing-
report-final.pdf
Ellis, S. E. (Ed.), (2010). Strategic planning in student affairs. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Harvey, T. (2014, March 6). Cost and Financial Aid Increasingly Influence Students’
Choice of College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/article/CostFinancial-Aid/145143
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). First-destination survey
standards and protocols. Retrieved from

http://naceweb.org/knowledge/assessment/first-destination-survey-
standards.aspx?land-surv-lp-3-kc-1destd-11072014
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). Guidelines for internal and
external review of career services. Retrieved from
http://naceweb.org/professional-resources/guidelines-for-internal-and-external-
review-of-career-services.index.aspx
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2012). Principles for professional
practice. Retrieved from http://naceweb.org/knowledge/principles-for-
professional-practice.aspx
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2013). Professional competencies for
college and university career services practitioners. Retrieved from
http://naceweb.org/career-services/professional-competencies.aspx
National Association of Colleges and Employers (2012). Position Statement: First-
Destination Surveys. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.naceweb.org/advocacy/position-statements/first-destination-
surveys.aspx
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). Unemployment data reveals flat
college labor market. Retrieved from
http://naceweb.org/s02192014/unemployment-college-labor-market.aspx
Saunders, D. B. (2014). Exploring a Customer Orientation: Free-Market Logic and
College Students. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 197–219.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2014.0013

Staklis, S., & Skomsvold, P. (2014). New College Graduates at Work: Employment
among 1992-93, 1999-2000, and 2007-08 Bachelor's Degree Recipients 1
Year after Graduation. Stats in Brief. NCES 2014-003. National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (2005, October 21). The High Cost of College: an Increasingly
Hard Sell. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B24. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.stthomas.edu/article/The-High-Cost-of-College-
an/20600/
Vedder, R., Denhart, C., & Robe, J. (2013). Why Are Recent College Graduates
Underemployed? University Enrollments and Labor-Market Realities. Center for
College Affordability and Productivity. Retrieved from
Wright, R. E. (2014). Student focused marketing: impact of marketing higher education
based on student data and input. College Student Journal, 48(1), 88+. Retrieved
from
http://ezproxy.stthomas.edu/login?URL=http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GAL
E%7CA372252069&v=2.1&u=clic_stthomas&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&asid=c15a
6e6f11ddd12073048147a28a7e41

Critical Issues Paper-Return on Investment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Critical Issues Paper-Return on Investment

Similar to Critical Issues Paper-Return on Investment (20)

Critical Issues Paper-Return on Investment