Susan Pendergrass speaks with Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, about his research on how artificial intelligence is reshaping higher education. They explore which college majors are most exposed to AI capabilities, why professors are largely not changing their syllabi or assessment methods despite widespread awareness of AI, and what students are doing in response to the uncertainty. They also discuss whether the backlash against AI on college campuses is real, what previous waves of technological change can teach us about the current moment, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): Thank you so much for joining us today on the podcast. Jacob Light, Hoover Fellow at the Hoover Institution, talking about something that’s very timely right now in this college graduation season. I’m hearing that all the college students are having a backlash against AI. I don’t know if you would agree with that or not, but I want you to try to explain to people listening what first of all you’ve been looking at in terms of AI in college in general, and also what your findings have been, because I find them to be very interesting and somewhat surprising.

Jacob Light (00:31): Thank you so much for having me. I’m really excited to join the podcast today. I’m an economist who studies how universities respond to different forces of change, whether that be changes in the labor market, changing political conditions, and more recently, changing technology, which feels very central both as a former student and now as an instructor at a university, thinking about how AI is affecting the way that students interact with their courses. My work right now thinks about this problem of AI in higher education in two ways. First, where should we be looking for exposure of higher education to AI? Where do the skills that students are learning to develop in their courses overlap with the capabilities of artificial intelligence? The second strain of the research is how are universities adapting? How are instructors changing the way that they administer courses? How are students changing which courses they take? And how should we look at these movements as indications of how these two sides of this market are responding to this big shock?

Susan Pendergrass (01:39): So to be clear, you’re not just saying that ChatGPT becomes available and all the professors outlaw the use of AI in classes, but more so: are students continuing in 2026 to be taught skills that we know AI can do? And what’s the answer?

Jacob Light (01:57): Yeah, exactly. I think it’s important to contextualize that we teach students many skills that have already been automated. We teach students basic arithmetic and spelling, even though we have calculators and spell check. We have these tools that can perform a lot of the cognitive work that we teach students to do from a very young age, and yet we still think it’s important for students to develop skills in these areas. We still teach students to add and subtract both because those skills unlock higher order cognitive skills and also just because that exercise is useful to students. So what I do in my research is think not just about whether instructors are changing the courses they offer to reduce the weight on things that ChatGPT and large language models are able to do, but if we think it’s important for students to develop these skills even though AI can do them, things like analyzing data or writing essays, then it becomes important for instructors to modify the way they offer courses so that we still get information about how well students are learning to do the tasks that AI can potentially substitute for them.

Susan Pendergrass (03:13): I don’t want to minimize the effort you put into this, because it’s massive. You went through thousands of syllabi to really look at what’s being taught in a very specific way. You also included not just large language model AI but robots, and a lot of the skilled trades. I would imagine that the skills needed 10 years ago have changed now that robots can do a lot of that work. What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (03:42): For this first part of the project, where I think about how different fields of study are exposed to artificial intelligence, I should say upfront that exposure here doesn’t necessarily mean that every computer scientist is going to have their job completely automated. What I’m thinking about is the degree to which students are able to use AI as a substitute for, or maybe even a complement to, their work in the classroom. The approach I take is to leverage a dataset that I’ve spent many years collecting of course offerings from a large number of US colleges and universities. For about 1,000 schools, I’ve scraped the course catalogs and course schedules, which gives me insight into every course offered at the school over a period of up to 30 years. I see course offerings, enrollment, titles, instructors, and course descriptions. I use these course descriptions to build a sense of what skills and tasks a student develops in, say, an economics class. The exposure measure is the degree to which what a student does in that class overlaps with the capabilities of artificial intelligence. To be very specific with an example: in an economics class, students are often trained to analyze data, use models, and evaluate policy. The intuition for the approach I use is that if we see AI is really good at analyzing data, using models, and evaluating policy, we would think of economics as a field of study that is highly exposed to AI. I think about exposure to AI in two different ways. For the broad capabilities of AI, I glean from patents related to artificial intelligence. I look at the overlap between the tasks that students do in their courses and tasks that AI technology patents say those technologies are capable of doing. And then very specifically at the capabilities of large language models, which I think of as a subset of AI.

Susan Pendergrass (05:21): Yeah.

Jacob Light (05:35): So I look at two measures of what AI can do: the broad range of AI capabilities, which I extract from patents, and then the specific capabilities of large language models. What I find is that when you compare the exposure of college courses to AI versus to previous types of technologies, such as robotics, we see that courses are much more exposed to the things that AI can do than to the capabilities of previous technologies. This is consistent with existing research that suggests highly skilled jobs, the types of jobs that college graduates flow into, are more exposed to artificial intelligence than they were to previous waves of technology. That’s the first order finding. But within college majors, there’s pretty wide variation in exposure, and it differs based on whether we think of exposure to the broad class of AI technologies versus just large language models.

Susan Pendergrass (06:55): What’s the most exposed? It looks like it’s computer science, right?

Jacob Light (07:00): Statistics and data science and computer science are highly exposed majors. Unfortunately, economics is also a highly exposed major. I should say it’s not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing to be exposed. On one hand, there’s a risk that students are not developing the same skills when they have access to these AI tools as they did in a pre-ChatGPT period. But also, we lower the barriers to entry into computer science and economics through the availability of these tools, because everyone’s vibe coding, and also you have bespoke tutors in your pocket that can help you navigate difficult courses and overcome barriers to entry. So it’s not obviously a bad thing.

Susan Pendergrass (07:35): Because everyone’s vibe coding.

Jacob Light (07:53): But to be specific, especially when we think about exposure to AI as represented by the capabilities of large language models, what seems to drive exposure is a combination of fields of study that involve data analysis and generating text. These are the two things we think of LLMs as being very good at. So the quantitative social sciences, economics, political science, even sociology, as well as fields that involve applied data analysis, including statistics and computer science, are going to be the fields where the skills that students develop overlap most with what AI is capable of doing.

Susan Pendergrass (08:31): So are professors changing their syllabi to reflect that? Are they dropping things that clearly could just be covered by AI?

Jacob Light (08:40): That gets to the second part of this project. Having documented that there is this concern that AI overlaps with what we teach students to do in their courses, and that students might be able to substitute AI for their own work, we might look specifically at these highly exposed fields as places where we want instructors to modify the way they teach as a means of ensuring that students are developing the skills they were developing before ChatGPT was released. We read a lot of these articles about blue books being back.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): Using blue books? I feel nostalgic for the blue books. There’s something almost romantic about writing in a blue book versus clicking buttons on a Canvas quiz.

Jacob Light (09:12): Yeah, I don’t like blue books by the way, but using blue books, yes.

Susan Pendergrass (09:23): But isn’t that just working against an enormous tide? To think that requiring students to write in a blue book is going to force them to not use AI for the exam, but aren’t they using it daily in their coursework?

Jacob Light (09:53): Again, it’s not obvious to me that using AI in their coursework is a bad thing. So much of the work I did when I was a college student was pretty inefficient. I spent a lot of time writing code that didn’t work and writing essays that read very poorly. To automate some of those experiences might allow students to invest more in the types of higher order thinking and learning that are more valuable. But on the other hand, I think I became a better coder because I made mistakes through the process. Now I can distinguish good code from bad code because I’ve written a lot of bad code and I know what my bad code looks like. So we might think that even if we’re not changing the types of skills that students develop in their courses, that we continue to offer economics courses and computer science courses, the way that we assess whether students are learning the skills they need is going to change. There are certain types of assessments, like out-of-class essays and homework, where you just can’t get as much information about how much students are learning, versus in-class proctored exams, participation, and presentations where students have to demonstrate mastery through assessments where you can’t use AI tools. What I do is, for about 20 universities, I’ve collected a panel of syllabi covering both the pre and post-ChatGPT period, and I extract two pieces of information. The first is whether the syllabus has an AI policy or not. The second is the weights that instructors put on different types of assessments, such as half the grade being based on exams and 25% based on essays. I find two interesting things. The first is that following the release of ChatGPT, instructors became very aware of AI. We see a massive increase in the share of courses that have any AI policy, and most of those policies are restrictive of the use of AI. My own syllabus has clear instructions about when I want students to use AI and when I don’t. My students are very compliant and of course listen to everything I say, both when I’m lecturing and in the syllabus. So we see that instructors are aware of AI and think of it as a concern in the classroom.

Susan Pendergrass (09:12): You think they follow that?

Jacob Light (12:24): Sure, great, okay. But the second thing I extract is assessment weights, which allow me to assess whether instructors are changing the way they offer courses in a way that lets them extract more information about how much students are learning. What I find is that despite instructors being very aware of AI, we see virtually no changes in how much weight instructors are putting on the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work, versus assessments like exams and participation where they can’t. We hear a lot about blue books being back. We hear anecdotal stories about how instructors are concerned about students using AI in the classroom. But I just don’t see this in the data.

Susan Pendergrass (13:23): That’s surprising to me.

Jacob Light (13:42): I think what’s interesting and informative is that there are two shocks in pretty quick succession over the last couple of years that push in opposite directions on the information that instructors can get from different types of assessments. During the pandemic, it became harder to offer in-person exams. There was a physical constraint that limited exams. What I see is a shift away from exams and towards homework, a gradual pre-pandemic shift away from exams that sharply accelerated during the pandemic, and that persists even in the years after in-person instruction resumes. We can use that as a benchmark: at minimum, instructors could revert back to the way they were weighting courses before the pandemic. What we see is basically nothing. There are very modest shifts away from homework and other AI-substitutable assessments, primarily essays. We’re slightly reducing the weight on essays and offsetting that with increases in participation and presentations. But we’re seeing very little movement at scale away from the types of assessments where students can substitute AI for their own work.

Susan Pendergrass (14:44): Maybe higher education just moves slowly. It’s an ivory tower. People get entrenched. Some professors use the same syllabus for 20 years. Maybe it just moves more slowly in reaction to this. I know some that are angry about the AI thing, but it’s up to them to figure out how to change it. In terms of what students are doing, how are they reacting to the changes in terms of what they’re choosing as majors? What are you seeing there?

Jacob Light (15:32): Yes, so I track changes in enrollment over the last 20 years using this course schedule data from a large number of universities. Similar to the relatively slow movement on the instructor side, students are moving pretty slowly as well. Despite stories about concerns about the viability of computer science as a major, and after a period of very rapid growth in CS enrollment, we’re only seeing a slight dip in CS enrollment and in other AI-exposed fields of study in the last couple of years. What I can show is that for the first time since around 2005, when CS enrollment began to take off, this current year, the 2025-26 year, we see a slight decrease in computer science enrollment. But it still remains elevated compared to the start of the pandemic and substantially elevated compared to 2010. In a way, perhaps this makes sense, because although there is greater uncertainty around the returns to developing CS skills, CS courses are now easier to take because you have tools that can help you with your homework and tutor you. One of the barriers to entry into CS courses previously was that they were hard, and these tools make more AI-exposed courses easier. I think the risk and the concern is that the same tools that can do your work in the classroom can also potentially do your job, and I don’t think we see students internalizing that risk yet.

Susan Pendergrass (17:12): Even though the Wall Street Journal has a layoff tracker and Meta is constantly seemingly laying folks off, and Amazon as well. We see a lot of thinning of the herd when it comes to software engineers. I just imagine it’s going to change. Is this generation of college students in a weird bind? They’re right between the pre-AI and post-AI worlds, spending a lot of money on college tuition at a time when the future of different types of work is very uncertain.

Jacob Light (17:54): I’m very sympathetic to college students who are navigating uncertainty right now of a form that I don’t think college students have had to navigate previously. During previous technological change, we’ve always looked to universities as the resource that we send people to upskill, with the promise that the skills you develop in college are going to have returns when you enter the labor market. I continue to believe that’s the case, certainly in the short term. But I recognize that the nature of work is changing quite rapidly as new technology can perform some of the tasks that workers are able to do. Economists often conceptualize occupations as a bundle of tasks, and when a new technology comes online, the technology is able to do some of those tasks while the human worker continues to perform others. The net impact on an occupation really depends on which tasks are being automated, and whether that means we need fewer people doing that occupation because the technology can do it for us, or whether the ability of technology to make workers more efficient actually increases the demand for people with those skills because now more firms will benefit from having a single software engineer on staff when it previously would not have been rational for them to have any. There’s a lot of uncertainty right now, and I think it’s difficult to navigate as a 19 or 20 year old.

Susan Pendergrass (19:37): What about this backlash? Eric Schmidt spoke at a college graduation and folks booed him, I think. Even Jonathan Haidt, who is sort of anti-smartphone and screen time. Do you perceive that? You work on a college campus. Do you see that age group wanting to turn away from AI?

Jacob Light (20:02): My perception is that the backlash is to the uncertainty that AI introduces. Many students are eager to use the technology when it makes them more efficient or when it allows them to substitute time they would spend solving problem sets towards leisure and other pursuits. But I’m sympathetic to the frustration that students are feeling, that this investment they’ve made and the promise of opportunity that college has previously offered is now at risk because of the changing technological landscape.

Susan Pendergrass (20:53): I was talking to a lawyer recently about AI and how they use it and how great it is for them. They said basically every lawyer now has their own legal assistant. And I was like, what does that do for legal assistants? Everyone’s got a research assistant, which is great. I use it all the time. But what does that do for people who used to start as a research assistant? It’s obviously changing things. I kind of remember, because I’m pretty old, desktop computers being the thing that was going to kill all these jobs, and it just shifted the market. It didn’t kill anything. It just dramatically increased productivity. I think people have a lot of dystopian views of this, but you sound like you’re a little more on the utopian side, and I think there could be a lot of positives that come out of it.

Jacob Light (21:38): I think that’s right. Economists are not in the business of making predictions generally, and I’d have to give up my PhD if I did. I take some comfort looking at previous waves of technological change, exactly as you said. Computers created more job opportunities than they reduced. Mechanized agriculture unlocked widespread growth in the economy despite reducing some employment in agriculture. My belief, if we take the past as precedent, is that we will see something like that with artificial intelligence as well. Some, perhaps many, occupations will be disrupted. Workers in those occupations will experience difficult consequences of this change. But there will be more and new opportunities available once this technology is more widely deployed. There’s a trade-off, and the transition is messy and painful. But I think on net, the precedent is that new technology is generally helpful for society.

Susan Pendergrass (22:57): AI spits out a lot of bad content and you still need a human, I think, to determine what’s bad and what’s good. I think that’s the skill set within the CS world. You can have AI code five versions of something, but somebody needs to know which one is good. So what do you think about that?

Jacob Light (23:22): I think that’s exactly right. The expertise becomes more valuable. In a way, it’s kind of a bummer that the parts of work where humans maintain their advantage are in evaluating quality rather than in generating. We’ve kind of taken the creative component of work away. I think it creates a less satisfying, perhaps less intellectually stimulating workflow. At this stage, certainly, we continue to need humans with expertise beyond the capabilities of AI to evaluate what AI is producing. I think that points to the crisis that higher education faces: if we are not able to produce these experts because students are not developing the skills we need them to develop in college, then how will we produce the next cohort of experts? Similarly to your point, if we don’t have legal assistants and research assistants who will eventually become lawyers and researchers, then we are not training people to preserve their comparative advantages over these new tools. I think that’s a big risk we face, and it emphasizes the importance of education right now more than ever.

Susan Pendergrass (24:56): So are you going to continue with this, scraping the data and looking at it?

Jacob Light (24:58): Yeah. It’s my maniacal hobby. I started this data collection in February 2020, and a month later the world changed. But I had a lot of free time on my hands, so it gave me something to do. This little hobby of mine became my pandemic hobby. It was my sourdough. This data gives really rich insight into how universities differ in ways that I don’t think researchers have been able to explore previously.

Susan Pendergrass (25:36): No, I think it’s great. That’s really cool. If people want to find out more, where can we find it?

Jacob Light (25:42): I’m a researcher at the Hoover Institution. You can go to my website at jacob-light.com. I’m always eager to talk about this work.

Susan Pendergrass (25:51): That’s fascinating stuff. Well, thanks so much. I’d love to see a follow-up in a year or two. I think it’s really interesting. Thank you so much.

Jacob Light (25:57): Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post AI and the Future of College with Jacob Light appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Evidence of grade inflation continues to mount in K-12 education and at universities (e.g., see here and here). The rising grades reflect a degradation of academic standards. There is clear evidence that when expectations of students are lowered, they (intuitively) respond with less effort.

A recent example of a low-standards grading philosophy is equity-based grading. The philosophy, intended to promote equity by recognizing the varied circumstances and challenges students face, emphasizes measures of student engagement rather than results. However, by de-emphasizing important skills such as turning in assignments on time and demonstrating skills on assessments, it lowers academic standards, reducing effort for true mastery. Cory Koedel recently wrote in this space about how the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) backed away from a “Grading for Equity” plan when too many community members complained.

A new low-standards philosophy, Labor-Based Grading (LBG), is also gaining traction in higher education. LBG is an alternative grading style in which students and teachers establish a grading contract that allows students to earn a default grade if all the work outlined in the contract is completed, no matter the quality of the work.

Notably, departments at prominent universities such as Penn State University and New York University have recently begun implementing LBG (mainly humanities departments—here and here). Practices at prominent universities often trickle down to less-prominent ones, and ultimately into K-12 classrooms as future educators who are exposed to these practices in college implement them in their own classrooms. LGB could come to a school near you, and sooner rather than later.

The key concern is that LBG does not set up students for success. In the real world, effort is not rewarded if it does not generate productive outcomes. In fact, it is a critical life skill to be able to apply effort in a productive manner. But LBG rewards effort for effort’s sake.

LBG exemplifies the continued push by some to lower academic standards. It is well intended, but this doesn’t make it any less harmful. It is important to remain vigilant and continue to advocate for rigor in a system where rigor is constantly under assault.

The post The Rise of Labor-Based Grading and the Continuing De-emphasis on Skill Development at U.S. Universities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Now that we have reached the (projected) enrollment peak and are heading down the cliff, Missouri needs to begin considering the implications for higher education and the workforce. First, the state should focus on the cost and access of public colleges and universities. Second students not planning on attending college should have access to career-building skills and certificates while still in high school. Finally, and most importantly, every Missouri high school graduate should leave school college or career ready.

We’ve known about these trends for a while, but there’s still time to adjust to our new enrollment reality if we make needed changes now. We’ll see if Missouri lawmakers actually follow through.

The post This Is Not a Drill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass speaks to Mike McShane and Rick Hess about their new book Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College.

In Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College, Frederick M. Hess and Michael Q. McShane argue that America has too long suffered from the absence of a robust, coherent, and principled conservative vision for educational improvement. The problem? The right has too narrowly focused on school choice, campus speech, and shrinking Washington’s footprint, while the left has sought to subsidize and supersize the status quo. The solution? An education system imbued with shared values, respectful of family ties, and equipped for the challenges of the 21st century.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Getting Education Right with Mike McShane and Rick Hess appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Think of it this way. When someone enters the teaching field after graduating from college, they are called “teacher.” Over the next 30 years, they can get a master’s degree, a specialist degree, or even a doctoral degree. They may attend numerous professional development sessions every year. When they retire, they may still be called “teacher.”

There are no ranks. There are no promotions. There are no steps to career advancement. The only pay raises they will receive will be based on getting additional degrees and each year of experience.

Compare this to higher education. At the higher education level, you may enter as a teaching or research professor not on a tenure track or on a tenure track. Typically, a new professor is called an “assistant” professor. After a few years, the professor can be promoted to “associate” professor and eventually to “full” professor. There are also prized “endowed professor” positions. In short, there are tiers to the profession.

This is not to say higher education is the pinnacle of excellence that should be modeled in every circumstance. Rather, this simply demonstrates the key differences between K-12 teaching and most other fields. In most public school districts, there is no room for advancement within the teaching profession. The only way to advance is to leave the classroom by becoming a principal, superintendent, or something else.

We can imagine a system where teachers are recognized for their performance in the classroom and rewarded in title and in compensation. Teachers need a system that recognizes and rewards excellence—call it merit pay, if you will. They need the opportunity to grow, to excel, and to be rewarded. That is the type of advancement opportunity teachers need. With that said, we should be wary of attempts to create a centralized advancement system from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) or the legislature. The state should empower local communities and local school leaders to develop routes for advancement for their teachers. Centrally imposed systems often become bureaucratic hoops to jump through. Local school leaders may be more motivated to create meaningful advancement opportunities. But this sort of reform surrounding advancement is what we should be focusing on—not red herrings about professional development.

The post Teachers Need Advancement Opportunities, Not Just Professional Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post The Great School Rethink with Rick Hess appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When universities require applicants to swear fealty to equity, what are they asking them to commit to? Are they asking people to pledge their support for equity policies such as this new mortgage policy? If not, what are they asking applicants to pledge their support to?

This is the problem with requiring DEI statements. Without a clear understanding of what the employer is looking for, one can only speculate about the purpose and intent of a DEI statement. If an applicant gives an answer that is out of step with the ideology held by most at the university, will that person be denied a job? This is one of the reasons why conservatives have called this requirement nothing more than a political litmus test that should not be allowed at public universities.

In March, University of Missouri System President Mun Choi sent an email to faculty that outlined a new policy prohibiting the use of DEI statements in hiring. Instead, the university will ask candidates to reply to the following statement, which Choi called a “values commitment”:

We value the uniqueness of every individual and strive to ensure each person’s success. Contributions from individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives promote intellectual pluralism and enable us to achieve the excellence that we seek in learning, research and engagement.

This commitment makes our university a better place to work, learn and innovate. In your application materials, please discuss your experiences and expertise that support these values and enrich our missions of teaching, research and engagement.

This change is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, many public universities in the state still require an ideological litmus test DEI statements. It is time for more leaders, in the legislature and in higher education, to take a stand against these practices.

The post Mortgages, Job Applications, and Equity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While starting your career with $25,000 plus in student loan debt can create challenges, these are somewhat offset by the higher earnings a college degree holder can expect. Yet, once again, student loan debt forgiveness is being floated as an economic policy. Let’s be clear: This relief is directed at the one in five Missourians who can expect significantly higher earnings over their lifetimes. Everyone else is left with nothing except picking up the tab. What about car loans? What about credit card debt?

This is a textbook example of a regressive tax; relief for higher earners at the expense of lower earners. Expensive government giveaways create bad precedent. They incentivize bad behaviors. And, like it or not, they have to be paid for at some point. Sorry to be a Grinch, but don’t ask Santa to forgive your student loans.

For more on this topic, click here to listen to our podcast with the Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey:

The post What About the other 80 Percent of Missourians? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The study examined 13 KIPP middle schools that had more applicants than seats available, so researchers were able to track the kids who got into the KIPP schools and those that didn’t. The groups of students are comparable because they all applied to KIPP schools, and thus have similar qualities like motivation and parental support. The results show that students enrolled in KIPP middle schools were 13 percent more likely to enroll in a 4–year college than students who did not. The study states that “the impact of attending a KIPP school would be almost large enough to erase the nationwide racial disparity in college enrollment rates.”

Nationally, KIPP has 242 schools and serves more than 100,000 students. St. Louis currently has six KIPP schools, including two middle schools and a high school. Kansas City has just two, including one middle school. There are so many more disadvantaged students outside of St. Louis and Kansas City who could benefit from a high-performing charter school like a KIPP school. Under Missouri’s current charter school laws, only the three percent of Missouri students in the St. Louis City or Kansas City school districts even have the option to apply for lottery admissions to KIPP schools. Charter school expansion could bring effective schools to students all over the state, giving students in urban and rural areas access to quality education.

The post Charter Schools Can Help More Students Get to College appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post The Latest Episode of the Show-Me Institute Podcast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

And while loan forgiveness would provide immediate relief to debt holders, it’s important to make the distinction between debt relief and actual education policy. Loan forgiveness would be a very costly policy that wouldn’t expand access to college. In fact, a recent analysis of the costs and benefits of several forms of “free college” found that only one didn’t create education benefits that exceeded the costs. And that was loan forgiveness. Why? Because in this case, those who qualify have already received their education. The benefit of that education is there whether their loans are forgiven or not. So the benefit stays the same, and the cost goes up.

If a student loan holder truly didn’t understand what they were signing up for, they should have a broad array of repayment options tied to their salary. If they were scammed by a loan processor or for-profit college that was selling snake oil, by all means they should have recourse. But a plan to take one point in time and forgive all debt for all holders, regardless of their occupation, income, or repayment status is being floated in order to make headlines by those who make a living spending other people’s money on other people.

We can do better.

The post Student Loan Forgiveness Isn’t Education Policy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Currently, only four out of ten lower-income students who enter college are graduating within six years. What’s more, few additional students graduate after six years; according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, only an additional 6.1 percent of all students entering college in 2009 graduated within eight years. Dropping out and being saddled with student loan debt makes it that much more difficult for these students to climb up the income ladder and access better-paying jobs that can help break cycles of poverty.

Here’s the data for first-time students in Missouri who started college full-time in the fall of 2011, per the Department of Education:

·         56.7 percent of those students graduated within six years, which is lower than the national average of 60.4 percent.

·         Students from the same group receiving Pell Grants from the federal government—most of which have family incomes below $30,000—have a six-year graduation rate in Missouri of only 40.6 percent, while students not receiving Pell Grants or a subsidized loan graduated at a rate of 68.3 percent.

These are startling numbers for Missouri. Not only are we behind the national average in terms of college completion, but a large number of those who fail to graduate appear to be low-income students. Those are exactly the kind of students who are least equipped to handle the burden of high student debt, especially without the benefit of a degree.

A 2013 report from the Department of Education estimated that in 2009 students who did not complete their degree had on average $9,300 of debt if they attended a public 4-year school and $10,400 if they attended a private, non-profit 4-year school. More recent data from Debt by Degree breaks down student loan debt by Pell status and individual schools; it showed Pell recipients attending Mizzou average $19,328 in federal loans.

Addressing the degree achievement gap must start at the K-12 level and, as I discussed before, competition through choice is necessary if we want better outcomes for low-income kids. But in the meantime, making changes at the college level can help lower-income students getting ready to go to college now or that are already there.

In “Creating Pathways for Self-Sufficiency,” I discuss a few ways colleges can boost graduation rates among low-income students. Retention grants or emergency scholarships can fill gaps in financial aid for low-income students who are on track to graduate but would otherwise have to drop out due to lack of funds. Providing supports like mentorships and enrollment or financial aid checklists have been effective in helping first generation college students be prepared.

Not included in my essay but also worth noting is data-based guidance counseling. Georgia State University’s predictive analytics system has helped students from all economic backgrounds graduate at higher rates by connecting students struggling academically with tutors sooner rather than later and making sure students are not taking unnecessary classes that cost extra time and money.

As taxpayers, we invest too many public dollars in education at every level to have results like these. Isn’t it time to move towards a system that better serves students of all economic backgrounds and ensures that those who go to college leave with a degree?

The post The Achievement Gap for Low-income Students Continues into College appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates. 
• Internships last approximately ten weeks. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but we anticipate that each internship will run from June 3 until August 16.
• Summer interns will work a full-time schedule (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). 
• Interns will be involved in many aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
• Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, assisting with social media, organizing events, and writing and editing op-eds, newsletter articles, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks will also be required.
• Policy internships as well as communications and development internships are available.
• A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest to him or her. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from staff members throughout the process.
• Internships are offered in both the St. Louis and Kansas City offices.
• Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit the application (see below) and the requested supporting materials. The deadline for applications is Friday, April 26, 2019. However, we will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision in mid to late May.

The post Summer Internships appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s low unemployment rate is welcome news, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. There are other important factors that predict economic well-being, such as labor force participation and statewide output, where Missouri’s economy is underperforming compared to other states. Tennessee, for example, is a demographically similar state but has shown significant growth compared to Missouri while also boasting a 3.5 percent unemployment rate.

As shown in the graphs below, Missouri’s labor force is stagnating. During an economic expansion, one would expect the number of interested laborers to increase. Missouri, however, defies these expectations. Our labor force shrunk by almost 30,000 people from 2016 to 2017. In this same period, our neighbor to the southeast, Tennessee, saw a spike in their labor force with 81,000 people joining.

People are entering the workforce in Tennessee to take advantage of the employment opportunities there. Some are Tennessee residents who have decided to look for work, and some are coming from outside the state. The state’s low unemployment rate suggests that Tennessee is capable of absorbing these additional potential workers and turning them into payroll employees. Compared to Missouri, Tennessee is attracting and employing people at a faster rate.

Additionally, Missouri’s production lags behind that of Tennessee as well. Missouri’s real gross domestic product, the measure of overall economic health, is growing slowly. Since 2012, Tennessee routinely experienced 2 to 4 percent annual growth in real GDP. Missouri struggles to hit 1 percent annual growth. The growing gap between Missouri’s and Tennessee’s GDPs, shown below, is stark.

Such slow growth is problematic for Missouri’s economy. The national economy is doing well, but Missouri is failing to take advantage of the rising levels of consumption, investment, and employment found throughout the country and is consequently losing out on major economic opportunities.

So what about Tennessee as compared to Missouri makes its economy grow faster and pull more people into the workforce? There are a few possibilities. First, Tennessee has no income tax, and two years ago Tennessee began to phase out the tax on investment income and will eliminate it entirely by 2022. Second, beginning in 2014 Governor Bill Haslam started reforming higher education by offering all high school graduates the opportunity to earn an associate’s degree or professional certification at no cost to them. Moreover, there has been greater coordination between colleges and businesses to ensure that the curriculum fits employers’ needs so that students learn skills that are in high demand. Third, Tennessee is a Right-to-Work state. Fourth, Tennessee is known as having a business-friendly environment.

It may be hard to pinpoint exactly what has led to Tennessee’s success, but tax-cutting policies combined with investment in workforce development and other pro-business policies like Right to Work stand out as reasons Tennessee is experiencing growth that Missourians can only envy. Continuing to push for elimination of the individual income tax and exploring potential workforce development policies could work just as well in Missouri.

The post Missouri’s Economy Struggles Despite a Low Unemployment Rate appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute is pleased to offer internship opportunities for Summer 2018.

• Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates.
• Internships last approximately ten weeks. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but we anticipate that each internship will run from June 4 until August 17.
• Summer interns will work a full-time schedule (9 a.m.-5 p.m.).
• Interns will be involved in many aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
• Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, organizing events, and writing and editing op-eds, newsletters, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks also will be required.
• Policy internships as well as communications and development internships are available.
• A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest to him or her. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.
• Internships are located in either our St. Louis or Kansas City office.
• Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit the enclosed application and the requested supporting materials. The deadline for applications is Friday, April 27, 2018. However, we will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision in mid to late May.

About the Show-Me Institute

Founded in 2005, the Show-Me Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization. The mission of the Institute is advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy. For more information:

Phone: (314) 454-0647

Email: intern@showmeinstitute.org

Web: www.showmeinstitute.org

Summer 2018 Intern Application Form.doc

The post Summer Internships appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But if the conversation about workforce development ends there, then it will have covered only the “seen” impact of public policy. Instead, policymakers should also consider the unseen consequences of oversubsidizing fields offered through our higher education system and neglecting other possible workforce investments. As the cargo-cultification of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) jobs has escalated in public policy circles in recent years, workforce development policy has increasingly emphasized professions requiring at least a bachelor’s degree, while other quality jobs that don’t require that version of education have been neglected—or even denigrated. 

Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame, who’s become a fierce public proponent of jobs of all stripes, may have put it best in this response to a detractor last year:

To be clear—I strongly support education in all its forms. I have a college degree, and as I’ve said many times, it’s served me well. But I believe society is making a terrible mistake by promoting college at the expense of all other forms of education. For instance, the surgeon you reference (who I would indeed prefer to have graduated from an accredited university) will never make it to the hospital to successfully remove my appendix without a functional infrastructure, which depends almost entirely upon an army of skilled tradespeople. And yet, our society clearly values the surgeon far more than mechanic who keeps her car running, or the contractor who put in the roads that allows her to drive to the emergency room.

We need people with formal higher educations. We also need people in professions that don’t require such degrees. The perception—often promoted by four-year institutions seeking tax dollars—that high paying jobs require degrees is plainly wrong.

It certainly remains true that four-year degree holders tend to make more than those who don’t hold such a degree, but while the average salary might be higher, there is a lot of variance in those numbers when you get down to the individual level. I have countless friends in their early 30s with undergraduate and graduate degrees who are scraping by under the twin pressures of loan payments and compressed salaries in both STEM and non-STEM professions. At the same time, I also know countless blue-collar professionals in their early 20s who have been catapulted into life’s comforts with a rising middle class salary thanks to professions like construction that, especially now, have tons of jobs but hardly enough trained professionals to fill them. (We’ve talked about this issue before.) 

Policymakers who believe in limited government need to reassess what the state spends its money on—what the state subsidizes directly and indirectly—and this is as true in the realm of workforce development as it is in other parts of the budget. Surely, STEM industries and other higher education programs deserve attention, but policymakers should exercise considerable caution in treating those jobs as talismanic rather than as components in a much larger, and much more diverse, state jobs portfolio.

The post Workforce Development Must Encompass the Spectrum of Professions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But repeal of the state’s prevailing wage law won’t put Missouri’s tradespeople on the fast track to pauperdom. Indeed, in true supply-and-demand fashion, a shortage of skilled laborers in the construction industry is already driving up salaries there.

“I think that all craft professionals are in the mid-to-upper five-figures, and once you add in per diem and bonuses and incentives, it is not uncommon that we have workers making six-figures,” [Steve Green, vice president of the National Center for Construction Education & Research] said, adding that often accounts “for a lot of overtime.”

With a slew of good paying available jobs, why is the labor shortage so pronounced?

“Construction is not a sexy profession: we don’t attract the younger workers like other professions do,” NCCER president Don Whyte said, adding that his organization is trying to change public perceptions to show that through construction, families can earn a robust middle-class living.

There are a lot of layers to this policy onion. Americans have long placed a premium on a college education, viewing it as a proxy for eventual prosperity while, in important respects, stigmatizing professions where a formal education isn’t required. Certainly college-educated individuals, on average, make more than those who don’t have a college degree, but the rising cost of that education and changing contours of the modern economy have taken a toll on the economic slam-dunk that college once was. Complicating matters further is that as government has subsidized college educations, it has produced more college graduates who otherwise wouldn’t have chosen college — and who instead might have become skilled tradespeople, creating a workforce gap in an industry which, literally, builds our country.

That’s a long way of saying that Missouri probably needs to reassess the way it looks at its workforce policies. The state spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year providing Missourians the opportunity for a college education, but is focusing on college-educated professions a silver bullet for a balanced economic future? Probably not. And that’s why recent efforts to promote apprenticeship programs in the state are not only welcome, but necessary to the economic future of Missouri.

To be sure, the best way to advance that goal will require robust debate, but it’s long past time that the state looked at its workforce portfolio and recognized that a college education leading to gainful employment is good for the state—but so too is a debtless apprenticeship in an industry that will pay handsomely for those services. I hope this important workforce issue gets the attention it deserves this session.

The post An Emerging Policy Frontier: Workforce Development appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates. 
• Spring internships will last approximately four months. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but each intern is expected to work at least 10 weeks.  No internship shall start prior to January 15. Spring internships will end on or before May 4, 2018.
• Spring interns can work a full-time schedule (9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with one hour for lunch), or arrange for a part-time schedule to accommodate class schedules. 
• Interns will be involved in virtually all aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
• Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, assisting with social media, organizing events, and writing and editing op-eds, newsletter articles, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks will also be required.
• A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.
• Communication and development internships are also available. If interested, please state this in your application.
• Internships are offered in both the Saint Louis and Kansas City offices.
• Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit an application (link below) and the requested supporting materials no later than December 8, 2017. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. We will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision no later than Monday, January 8, 2018.

The post Spring 2018 Internships appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Obama administration’s guidelines had come under criticism as more and more individuals accused of sexual assault came forward to argue that their due process rights were being violated.

The “Dear Colleague” letter (and subsequent communications by the Department of Education) offered several bits of problematic guidance. First, the letter directed universities to follow what is called a “single investigator” model when pursuing these claims, meaning that a university employee would, as Emily Yoffe of the Atlantic wrote, act as “detective, prosecutor, judge, and jury” for the case. There is a reason why we separate those responsibilities in our court system.

Standard rules of evidence that we would expect any court of law to follow did not have to be followed. Because of the opaque nature of these investigations, those accused did not have a right to submit evidence on their own behalf or cross-examine witnesses or experts. In fact, those accused of these crimes did not even have to be notified of the specific complaint against them. It was a recipe for disaster.

At the core of all investigations is the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the accusers. As both Yoffe and Robby Soave of Reason.com have documented in heartbreaking detail, current processes have failed both of these groups. Due process helps to ensure that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are not. With an issue as serious as sexual assault, it is that much more important that fair and transparent procedures are followed. Let’s hope that this period of public comment brings them back into balance.

The post Education Department to Revisit Title IX Guidelines for Sexual Assault Investigations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I think this is a great idea, for one reason that is obvious, and for another that might be less so.

The obvious reason is that we have a public university system (note that the university’s name for the program harkens back to the “land grant” nature of Mizzou) to provide higher education to bright students who might not otherwise be able to afford it. This intuition is not new in America.

Thomas Jefferson, the father of the University of Virginia, himself wrote of students:

“that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked.”

As college costs increase, our universities are pricing out many students who would thrive at them, but simply cannot afford the skyrocketing tuition. This program will work to solve that problem and we should laud it for that.

But the second reason why this program is a great idea is subtler.

In the past, efforts to try and help low income student attend college have had unintended consequences. Typically, states and the federal government have given low-income students scholarships, like Pell grants, or subsidized loans to help defray the cost of education. In response, many universities started to “price” these scholarships into the cost of tuition, banking on the fact that students will automatically be able to pay it, and this has driven up the cost of schooling.

Mizzou’s program is different. Rather than rely on outside funding, Mizzou is footing the bill itself. That means that any increase in the cost of providing an education is borne by Mizzou. This should provide a powerful disincentive for the school to become more expensive.

Now, the devil is always in the details, and the program isn’t launching for another school year, so we won’t know the full scope and effect of the program for some time. But if programs like these are representative of the type of bold thinking that university leaders are engaging in, Mizzou is putting itself on a much better path into the future.

The post It’s a Good Idea for Mizzou to Cover Tuition for Low-Income Students, but the Reason May Surprise You appeared first on Show-Me Institute.