Table of Contents
- Introduction
- #1 Students Hold High Hopes That a Short-Term Credential Will Allow Them to Enter a New Field
- #2 Half of Working Adults with a Short-Term Certificate Earn Poverty-Level Wages
- #3 Most Adults Believe Their Short-Term Certificates Are Useful for Getting a Job—Even if the Job Is Unrelated to Their Credential
- #4 Many Adults with a Short-Term Certificate Are Not Employed
- #5 Students Think Hands-On Training is Useful, But Few Adults with Short-Term Certificates Receive This Training
- Discussion and Conclusion
Discussion and Conclusion
Ongoing questions around the value of very-short-term higher education programs are valid, especially when evaluating outcomes for marginalized students. Our analysis found that when Black and Latino/Latina students complete a short-term certificate, they make up to $20,000 less in median yearly earnings than white students with a similar credential. And we found that the typical annual earnings for over half of graduates who are working are less than $30,000. Additionally, as highlighted in our focus groups, many students believe work-experience programs are critical in labor market preparation; yet Black and Latino/Latina students participate in these programs at glaringly lower rates than white students. These disparities in outcomes warrant further research and new efforts to ensure that all students have equal access to the promise of higher education.
It is clear that educational providers offering short-term programs need to do much more to support their students’ goals of financial security and socioeconomic mobility. For instance, prioritizing real-world experience to supplement course work is critical. Students both benefit and tend to report higher levels of satisfaction from short-term programs when they participate in work-experience opportunities.1 It is essential that these hands-on experiences be accessible to all students through their programs to help buffer the racial and gender gaps in earnings for individuals with a short-term certificate.
The current research on very-short-term programs (15 weeks or fewer) is relatively scant and deserves more attention. But the fact that the economic returns of a postsecondary credential differ so substantially based on race/ethnicity and gender should give policymakers serious concern about the existing equity implications of these short-term programs, and especially about the unintended consequences of further subsidizing programs fewer than 15 weeks that do not lead to family-sustaining employment and wages. It is imperative for policymakers to consider these five critical findings to inform federal policymaking on this issue.
Citations
- Lake Research Partners.