Income Mobility At Historically Black . - Rutgers University
Moving Upward and Onward:Income Mobility atHistorically Black Collegesand UniversitiesRobert A. Nathenson, Consortium for Policy Researchin Education, University of Pennsylvania GraduateSchool of EducationAndrés Castro Samayoa, Boston CollegeMarybeth Gasman, Rutgers University–New BrunswickSamuel DeWittProctor Institutefor Leadership, Equity & Justice
“Over the past few years, a number ofresearchers have begun to seriously lookat mobility, specifically, those collegesand universities that are pathways topeople from modest means to achievethe American dream. These studies havehighlighted the awesome work of America’sHBCUs, a sector where over two-thirds ofstudents are Pell Grant eligible, but as asector has been able to achieve the greatestresults in terms of mobility to the middleclass and beyond. Dillard University hasplayed a significant role in this work, alwaysenrolling a high number of low-incomestudents yet creating a campus culture,which supports them not only throughcollege but leads them on a path to a newlevel of prosperity for their families.– Walter Kimbrough, President, Dillard UniversityMoving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities”2
OverviewResearch AimsOur key research aims are to (1) examine the intergenerational income mobility experienced by studentswho recently attended Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Predominantly WhiteInstitutions (PWIs) and (2) to examine variation across HBCUs, including on such measures as upwardmobility into the top fifth of income earners.Key Findings01.HBCUs enroll far more low-income students than PWIs.02.More students experience upward mobility at HBCUs than at PWIs.03. Nearly 70% of students at HBCUs attain at least middle-class incomes.04. T wo-thirds of low-income students at HBCUs end up in at least themiddle class.05.There is less downward mobility at HBCUs than at PWIs.06. HBCUs like Xavier University of Louisiana, Dillard University, and TuskegeeUniversity are doing a particularly good job fostering upward mobility fortheir students.07. Children of affluent parents who attended PWIs were 50% more likely to stayaffluent than children of affluent parents who attended HBCUs.Moving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities3
Ongoing ImportanceBackgroundIn recent years, federal and state officials have questioned the value of Historically Black Collegesand Universities (HBCUs), going so far as to cut funding streams and raise concerns over theirconstitutionality (Boland and Gasman, 2014). With this questioning in mind, we are interested inunderstanding HBCUs as a vehicle of social mobility.We are aware of only a handful of quantitative studies in this area. Kim and Conrad (2006) found thatthe graduation rate for African Americans at HBCUs is comparable to Predominantly White Institutions(PWIs), despite HBCUs having substantially fewer institutional resources. While this work indicatesthat HBCUs may be performing exceptionally well with limited support, graduation rates are only oneindicator of mobility, and one that is limited as it does not pertain to longer labor market outcomes. BothFryer and Greenstone (2010) and Price, Spriggs, and Swinton (2011) compare the labor market earningsof graduates at HBCUs to non-HBCUs, but they find conflicting results. The data from each of thesestudies is also dated - Kim and Conrad’s study is derived from a 1985 cohort of college freshman, Price,Spriggs, and Swinton study’s latest sample is 1992, and the latest year in Fryer and Greenstone’s studyis 1997, twenty years ago. As the college landscape has and continues to change, the literature wouldbenefit from a study using more recent data, which our study seeks to offer using data from OpportunityInsights (formerly the Equality of Opportunity Project).Importantly, our work seeks to build on a recent research project in this area. The American Councilon Education’s (2018) report sheds a preliminary spotlight on upward mobility at Minority ServingInstitutions (MSIs). The report examined mobility rates at a variety of four-year and two-year MSIs,including HSIs (Hispanic Serving Institutions), HBCUs, and AANAPISIs (Asian American and NativeAmerican Pacific Islander Serving Institutions). The report presented aggregate national informationby MSI type. The authors concluded that “income mobility by students who attended MSIs across thecountry exceeded mobility rates at non-MSIs” (Espinosa, Kelchen, and Taylor 2018, p. 17).Higher education is most often a local decision and experience (Turley, 2009). For instance, the mediancommuting distance for students attending public institutions is 11 miles (Hillman, 2016). We, therefore,choose to focus on the localized higher education market instead of nationally, comparing mobility atHBCUs to PWIs within the same commuting area. We also take a more holistic approach of mobility byexamining the proportion of students that experience any upward mobility. Lastly and critically, the ACEreport does not condition their key outcomes on students’ origin, i.e. the parents’ income level. Far morelow-income students enroll in HBCUs and other MSIs than PWIs. We believe that the most accuratemeasure of mobility also accounts for students’ origins, i.e. the mobility trajectories of students withlow-income parents. As detailed in Blau & Duncan’s seminal Status Attainment Model (1967), parentalMoving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities4
origin is a crucial component of the origin-education-destination mobility pathway.1 In this study, wetherefore also analyze students’ conditional mobility outcomes in order to obtain what we believe tobe the most candid examination of students’ local mobility opportunities. For example, in Atlanta, thehigher education market includes such HBCUs as Spelman College and Clark Atlanta University, as wellas Georgia State and Clayton State, which are both PWIs.MotivationOur work focuses on understanding persistent educational and economic stratification and the role ofinstitutions of higher education (IHE) in upward mobility. HBCUs are regarded as institutions that canaddress racial inequalities embedded within the educational system (Gasman, 2007; Gasman, 2011).For this study, we conceptualize HBCUs as vehicles for Black empowerment given their rich history,including as incubators for Black activism and protest during the Civil Rights Movement (WilliamsonLott, 2008). Tatum (1997) argues that HBCUs foster a shared experience and mutual understanding fortheir students. Price, Spriggs, and Swinton (2011) posit that HBCUs positively shape students’ “identity,self-image, and self-esteem” (p. 106), which, they find, yields a wage premium in the labor market. Ourwork furthers this research by examining recent population-level data of income mobility at HBCUs andthen unpacks variation in the mobility across institutions.Research AimsOur key research aims are to (1) examine the income mobility experienced by students who recentlyattended HBCUs and PWIs and (2) to examine the variation across HBCUs, including on such measuresas mobility to the top income quintile and any upward mobility. We compare intergenerational incomemobility at HBCUs to the mobility rates at PWIs within the same set of commuting zones. Doing soallows us to compare and contrast student outcomes at the localized institutional level, and to drawplausible generalizations about the tradeoffs students face when deciding which local institutionto attend.Origin modeled as father’s education.1Moving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities5
MethodologyData SourcesWe use publicly available aggregate U.S. population-level intergenerational (parent linked to child) incomeinformation from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with college attendance information from theNational Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Thesedata were created as a collaboration between U.S. government employees and researchers affiliated withHarvard’s Opportunity Insights. The IRS data links parents and their children’s reported income earningsfor children born from 1980-1991. Opportunity Insights publicly released aggregated information bypostsecondary institution after merging in key college demographic and institutional characteristicsinformation from IPEDS. Institutions are identified and linked to IPEDS data through their unique Officeof Postsecondary Education identifier (OPEID) assigned by the U.S. Department of Education.Parents’ household earnings are calculated as the five-year average when the child was age 15-19.Children’s earnings are calculated as wage and self-employment earnings in 2014, when children werein their early to mid-thirties. Postsecondary institution is defined as the institution the child most oftenattended between the ages of 19 and 22. Income mobility by postsecondary institution is calculated asan aggregation of students and parents’ income for children born in 1980, 1981, and 1982. Data on the1983-1991 cohorts is also available, though there is less information on post-college outcomes for themas fewer years have passed since postsecondary exit.Analytic SampleOf the 101 postsecondary institutions classified as HBCUs within IPEDS, 50 four-year institutions areindividually identified in the 1980-1982 cohorts (four others are classified as two-year institutions). Allother HBCUs were part of a university system and therefore not individually identifiable or did not havesufficient data from 1980-1982 (i.e. enough students observed) to be included. While we acknowledgehaving data on only half of HBCUs as a potential limitation, we have information on a greater numberof HBCUs than previous work in the area (i.e. Fryer & Greenstone, 2010; Kim & Conrad, 2006; Price,Spriggs, and Swinton, 2011) and the institutions for which we have data are geographically representativeof all HBCUs. Figure 1 depicts the HBCUs contained in our analytic sample. The comparison PWIs arelocated within the same commuting zone of at least one of these HBCUs and are of similar institutionalselectivity according to the Barron’s Selectivity Index. We identify 115 PWIs, yielding an analytic sampleof 165 institutions.Moving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities6
Figure 1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the Analytic Sample394073765046242548184749303236294333 34353138411214 1728541 4215272133202621161192219 .18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical UniversityStillman CollegeTuskegee UniversityPhilander Smith CollegeUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffHoward UniversityUniversity of the District of ColumbiaBethune Cookman UniversityFlorida Agricultural & Mechanical UniversityFlorida Memorial UniversityAlbany State UniversityClark Atlanta UniversityFort Valley State UniversityMorehouse CollegePaine CollegeSavannah State UniversitySpelman CollegeKentucky State UniversityDillard UniversityGrambling State UniversitySouthern University & Agricultural & Mechanical College at Baton RougeSouthern University at New OrleansXavier University of LouisianaHarris-Stowe State UniversityLincoln University of Jefferson A45.LA46.LA47.LA48.MO49.MO50.Jackson State UniversityMississippi Valley State UniversityRust CollegeBennett CollegeElizabeth City State UniversityFayetteville State UniversityNorth Carolina Agricultural & Technical State UniversityNorth Carolina Central UniversitySaint Augustine’s UniversityShaw UniversityWinston-Salem State UniversityCentral State UniversityLangston UniversityCheyney University of PennsylvaniaLincoln University of PennsylvaniaClaflin UniversitySouth Carolina State UniversityTennessee State UniversityPrairie View Agricultural & Mechanical UniversityTexas Southern UniversityHampton UniversityNorfolk State UniversityVirginia State UniversityBluefield State CollegeWest Virginia State UniversityMoving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and TXVAVAVAWVWV7
Outcome MeasuresThroughout the text, we often refer to students in the 1st/bottom quintile as low-income, the 2ndquintile as lower-income, the 3rd quintile as middle class, and also as median—students who come fromhouseholds with close to the median income, the 4th quintile as upper-middle, and the 5th/top quintileas affluent/high-income.2 We examine both the joint and conditional intergenerational (parent-child)income mobility distributions, what Chetty, Friedman, et al. (2017) call the ‘mobility rate’ and the‘success rate,’ respectively. The mobility rate is defined as the percent of children who originate in aspecific income quintile and end up as adults in a specific (often different) income quintile. The successrate is defined as the percent of children in a specific income quintile, conditional on their parent beingin a specific income quintile. The former presents a holistic picture of the origin-destination incomemobility patterns from parents to students (e.g. what percent of all students were in the top quintile andhad parents with incomes in the bottom quintile). The latter details the income mobility of studentsgiven that their parents’ income was in a specific income bracket (e.g. of students who had parents in thebottom quintile, what percent of students achieved income in the top quintile). It is our emphasis on thesuccess rate, specifically, that helps distinguish our work from other research in the area.“It is our emphasis on the success rate,specifically, that helps distinguish our work fromother research in the area.”Parental household income cutoffs (set to 2015 dollars) are as follows: 25,000 for the 20th percentile, 46,000 for the 40th percentile, 74,000 for the 60thpercentile, and 111,000 for the 80th percentile. The median parental income is 60,000 and the 99th percentile is 512,000. Parental income cutoffs are derivedfrom the pre-tax adjusted gross income of parents of children born in 1980 during the five years their child was 15-19 years old. For further information, seeChetty et al., “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility,” https://nberg.org/papers/w23618.2Moving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities8
Main FindingsDescriptive ComparisonsWe first detail descriptive institutional and student characteristics for the HBCUs and PWIs containedin our analytic sample, which highlights similarities and differences across these institution types. Wediscuss various (unconditional) Mobility Rate measures and a number of (conditional) Success Ratemeasures. We discuss mobility variation within HBCUs and highlight HBCUs that are observed to befostering particularly high rates of upward mobility. Lastly, we discuss inter-generational perpetuation ofprivilege at institutions of higher education.Table 1 reports descriptive institutional and student characteristics at HBCUs and PWIs. By includinginformation on the ways in which our set of HBCUs and PWIs are similar to each other and the waysin which they differ, we provide important context to our main findings. Descriptively, HBCUs have farfewer institutional resources per student than PWIs, with less than 1/3rd of the endowment per studentat PWIs, though both types of institutions spend similar amounts on instruction. Far more HBCUs arepublic institutions than PWIs, and the average SAT scores of students at HBCUs are significantly lowerthan students at PWIs. The sticker price of attendance at HBCUs is lower than their PWI counterparts,but, critically, the net cost of attendance for the bottom fifth of students based on income profiles, a moreaccurate measure of the holistic cost of attendance, indicates that HBCUs are not significantly differentthan PWIs. Students at HBCUs are less likely to major in arts and humanities and multi/interdisciplinarystudies, and more likely to major in STEM, social science, and public and social service fields. Fewerstudents graduate within 150 percent of normal time at HBCUs and, 10 years after enrollment, HBCUstudents’ median earnings are approximately one-quarter (over 10,000) lower than their counterpartsat PWIs.Moving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities9
Table 1. Institutional and Student Characteristics at HBCUs and PWIs1HBCUPWIEndowment Assets per Student in 20001,5295,183*Average Faculty Salary, 200147,74150,299**Total Instructional Expenditures, 20005,3804,753**Total Instructional Expenditures, 20128,0829,085**Proportion of Selective Institutions from Barron's Selectivity Index20.980.98**Public University (vs Private)0.640.38**Rejection Rate (One Minus Acceptance) from College Scorecard, 20130.500.35***3Average SAT Scores, 20019001067***Average SAT Scores, 201338761057***Average Annual Cost of Attendance, 20004,9599,790***Average Annual Cost of Attendance, 201310,67020,435***Net Cost of Attendance for Bottom 20% Income Quintile from College Scorecard, 201313,71215,470***Total IPEDS Undergraduate Enrollment (Fulltime and Part-time), 20003,8517,861**Total IPEDS Undergraduate Enrollment (fulltime and Part-time), *Asian/Pacific Islander0.000.02***Non-Resident Alien0.020.03**Arts and **Multi/Interdisciplinary0.050.10*Public and Social Services0.090.05***Social Sciences0.310.26*STEM0.200.14**Trades and Personal Services0.000.01**Percentage of Students Graduating within 150 Percent of Normal Time, 20020.380.50***Percentage of Students Graduating within 150 Percent of Normal Time, 20130.350.53***Median Earnings ( ) of Students who are Working and not Enrolled 10 Years after Entry from College Scorecard, 201131,65841,301***N50115INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES ( )INSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVITYC O S T O F AT T E N D A N C E ( )STUDENT BODYProportion of Undergraduate Student Body, 2000Proportion by College Major, 2000C O L L E G I AT E O U T C O M E S* p 0.05 ** p 0.01 *** p 0.0011 Further information on these characteristics can be found in the Opportunity Insights data, /2018/04/Codebook-MRC-Table-10.pdf2 Virtually all institutions are classified as Selective according to the Barron’s Selectivity Index. However, this category is the lowest Selective category, aboveonly Nonselective schools and below Ivy Plus institutions, Elite institutions, and Highly selective institutions.3Defined as the mean of the 25th and 75th percentile of math and verbal SAT scoresMoving Upward and Onward: Income Mobility at Historically Black Colleges and Universities10
Mobility RatesMOBILITY MATRIXTable 2 presents the full parent-child income quintile mobility matrix for HBCUs (Panel A) and PWIs(Panel B). The 25 cells in each panel of Table 2 sum to 100 percent, as they represent the percent ofstudents in each parental income-child income pair. For instance, the average percent of students withlow-income parents (quintile 1) and who stayed low-income as adults at HBCUs is 2.84%. We presentthese tables in their entirety to provide a complete profile of the Mobility Rates across institution types andto detail how our work expands upon research in the area. In Table 4 (Panels A and B), we discuss findingsfrom the Success Rate in order to document students’ mobility after conditioning for parental origin.The income-origin profile of the student body populations at HBCUs and PWIs are quite different.Almost one-quarter (24%) of students at HBCUs are low-income (‘Total’ column, Table 2 Panel A), threetimes the rate at PWIs.
Alabama Agricultural & Mechanical University AL 2. MSStillman College AL 3. MS Tuskegee University AL 4. Philander Smith College AR 5. University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff AR 6. Howard University NCDC 7. University of the District of Columbia DC 8. Bethune Cookman University FL 9. Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University NCFL 10. FL Florida Memorial University 11. GAAlbany State University .
Income Tax Act 2007 2007 No 97 BC 6 Income tax liability of filing taxpayer 106 BC 7 Income tax liability of person with schedular income 106 BC 8 Satisfaction of income tax liability 108 Subpart BD—Income, deductions, and timing BD 1 Income, exempt income, excluded income, non- 108 residents' foreign-sourced income, and assessable income
Aruba 7008 Mobility Controller Aruba 7010 Mobility Controller Aruba 7024 Mobility Controller Aruba 7030 Mobility Controller Aruba 7210 Mobility Controller ArubaOS_72xx_8.1.0.0-1.0.0.0 ArubaOS_72xx_ 8.4.0.0-1.0.6.0 ArubaOS_72xx_8.4.0.0-1.0.5.1 Aruba 7220 Mobility Controller Aruba 7240 Mobility Con
pd8b3417.frm eng6 black black black 239-7q, black 239-6r, black eng8 239-8q, black eng11 239-10j , black 239-4bb, black 239-1jj , black black 239-15g, black
2 Introduction: - Transformational Shifts Reshaping the Future of Mobility New Mobility Business Models Mobility Integration Convergence of Corporate Mobility The City as a Customer Women and the Automotive Industry Focus on Health Wellness and Wellbeing in the Automotive Industry Connected and Automated Mobility Growth in high Speed Rail and Public transport .
01.26.10.0033 Trial double mobility liner Ø 22mm / DMC 1 on demand 01.26.10.0034 Trial double mobility liner Ø 22mm / DMD 01.26.10.0035 Trial double mobility liner Ø 28mm / DMD 01.26.10.0036 Trial double mobility liner Ø 28mm / DME 01.26.10.0037 Trial double mobility liner Ø 28mm / DMF 01.26.10.0038 Trial double mobility liner Ø 28mm / DMG
Gene example Black and Liver B Locus is the gene responsible for the Black / liver coat colours: The B Locus has two alleles : B Black b Liver The black parent alleles are B / B (Black / Black) The liver parent alleles are b / b (liver / liver) The offspring is black and its alleles are B / b (Black / liver) The offspring inherited the black allele from the black
AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI): The median family income in the metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME (ELI): Households with income at or below the Poverty Guideline or 30% of AMI, whichever is higher VERY LOW-INCOME (VLI): Households with income between ELI and 50% of AMI LOW-INCOME (LI): Households with incomes between 51% and .
This is why we called the 4th High Level Dialogue on Connected & Automated Mobility in Vienna “Beyond SAE LEVELS: Towards Safe and Sustainable Mobility”. We wanted to pick up on the Swedish focus on integrated mobility and ask ourselves how we can integrate new automated services into a future-proof and sustainable mobility eco-system.
