Love Thy Neighbor: Interfaith marriage and the Catholic/non-Catholic next door

Chester Gillis, Dean of Georgetown College, has an interesting On Faith post on spouses of different religions ahead of Chelsea Clinton’s weekend wedding (she is Methodist and her husband-to-be is Jewish). Dean Gillis focuses on some of the issues and challenges interfaith couples often face.

Sociologists Jim Davidson and Tracy Widman have shown that there is a method of predicting where interfaith marriage is more and less likely among Catholics (see: The Effect of Group Size on Interfaith Marriage Among Catholics, JSSR, Vol. 41, #3). As shown below, their findings remain consistent in the most recent data available (The Official Catholic Directory 2010).

It is almost too simple. The likelihood that a Catholic will marry a non-Catholic is strongly and directly related to the likelihood that a Catholic will be in close proximity to other Catholics. Social scientists have long understood that proximity is an essential factor in the process of romantic pairing. “A strong determinant of your attraction toward others is simply whether you live near them, work next to them, or have frequent [in-person] contact with them” (Andersen and Taylor, Sociology: understanding a diverse society, 2005, p. 126). The data continue to show this is among the most important factors in the new era of online social networking and dating where it is now easier than ever to meet and socialize with fellow Catholics even when there are none living next door (or nearby).

In dioceses where Catholics make up only 10% of the total population, the average percentage of interfaith marriages celebrated in parishes is 41%. By comparison, this average is only 16% where 40% or more of the total population in a diocese is Catholic.  

Overall, 45,792 of the 174,210 marriages celebrated in U.S. Catholic parishes in 2009 were between a Catholic and non-Catholic (26%). This total of course does not include any other marriages outside of the Church involving Catholics that occur in other places of worship or in secular settings. However, a broader portrait is available in a recent CARA national survey of self-identified adult Catholics, where 28% of married respondents (within the Church or elsewhere) indicated their spouse is non-Catholic. Among never-married Catholics in this survey who said they are at least “a little likely” to be married in the future, only 31% of said it is either “somewhat” or “very” important to them that their future spouse be Catholic. 

Contrary to popular opinion or anecdote, interfaith marriages are not becoming more common among Catholics in the United States. The rate of interfaith marriage peaked in the 1970s and 1980s during a period where many young Catholics had left urban communities formerly established by immigrant Catholics in the Northeast and Midwest to live in suburbs and areas of the Sunbelt where fewer Catholics resided. In recent years the percentage of interfaith marriages has declined slightly from that peak as new waves of Catholic immigration have recreated majority Catholic communities in the South and Southwest.

The regression below (where each marker is a diocese) estimates (by the line through the markers) that a diocese where 5% of the population is Catholic will likely have about 39% of the weddings celebrated in parishes involving a Catholic marrying someone who is not Catholic. By comparison, the model estimates this to be 25 percentage points lower, or 14% interfaith in a diocese where the population is 55% Catholic. The model is not perfect and there are many other potential variables that might improve it but by population alone these are the statistical odds and oddities of love… even in the 21st century.

Above photo courtesy of Leo Reynolds at Flickr Creative Commons.

Follow-up to Investment in Higher Education

A piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education recently asked, “Is college worth the price of admission?” A previous post here, Investment in Higher Education, made the case that there are many Catholic colleges where the answer is without any doubt "yes."

The federal government has proposed new rules regarding “gainful employment” accountability for access to public financial aid at for-profit colleges that may put the Chronicle’s question to an even more rigorous test for that sector.  If approved, a for-profit college would need at least 45% of their former students to be paying off the principal on their student loans or their graduates must have a student debt-to-earnings ratio of less than 20% of discretionary income or 8% of total income for the campus to be eligible to continue offering federal student financing.

This proposal would essentially convert higher education at for-profit institutions into a commodity by linking benefits (accessibility to aid) to how their degrees are valued in the job marketplace (employment and income of graduates). As noted in the previous post, if applied to colleges more broadly (including non-profits... which is currently unlikely) it would potentially affect institutions and programs that primarily focus on areas such as elementary education, religion, theology, and social work where average incomes for graduates are well below those who study engineering, computer science, chemistry, mathematics, or biomedical science. Where access to aid is linked to future income, tuition would likewise need to be linked to the employment and potential wealth a graduate could earn. Some degree programs would likely get priced out of the market.

Therein is the potential oversight of these new policy proposals. Clearly not all college students view their education as a commodity. It ignores the possibility that some may choose to invest in obtaining a degree for benefits that are not primarily related to their future income. Some are not just in it for the money. Few go into education, religion, theology, or ministry to “get rich” and are willing to earn little on the investment to be in the occupation/vocation of their choice (or to attend a specific college of their choice). No college program should price itself at a level that prevents a responsible student from repaying the loans needed to enroll and attend. At the same time it is possible that the debt to earnings ratios in the new rule may not be consistent with what a student might be willing and able to borrow and repay to get a degree to enter the field of their choice.

The previous Nineteen Sixty-four post used data from the Department of Education to estimate which Catholic colleges and universities might be least likely to be affected by any application of the “gainful employment” rule to colleges more broadly. Another recently released analysis for U.S. colleges and universities by PayScale can provide additional context to this discussion. 

PayScale bases its analysis on national surveys of full-time employees and includes only those who earn bachelor’s degrees (excluding those who went on to graduate or professional schools). Their recent report calculates estimates for the return on investment (ROI) of graduating from a specific college. This ROI is the estimated future additional income one receives from investing in higher education (paying for college and forgoing some income while being enrolled) that they would not have received if they had only a high school degree (see PayScale's complete methodology). The table below isolates the top Catholic colleges and universities in this study (newer colleges without income trends or small numbers of graduates were not included) where the estimated 30 year accumulated return on investment exceeds $600,000.

The Catholic colleges in the table above would not likely be affected in any way by an expansion of the “gainful employment” rule to the non-profit sector as the average return on investment for all graduates would easily underwrite salary deficiencies for graduates from any particular program that was not rewarded financially as well in the marketplace.

Yet, a cost factor (as far as I can tell) that is not fully accounted for in the PayScale study is the very one that the federal government’s rules and the previous Investment in Higher Education post highlighted: the necessity and costs of repaying a loan. The interest paid on a student loan could partially eat away at the estimated ROI for many graduates. However, for the colleges listed above the ROIs are so large that the investment is still a very sure bet. Yet it is important to note that the actual ROI for any specific student will differ by the necessity of having to use a loan or their ability to pay costs out of pocket. The colleges noted with an asterisk in the table met all four retention, graduation, and loan criteria outlined in Investment in Higher Education post and their ROI would be least likely to be affected by interest on loan repayments.

Of course any good educational analyst also must point out that the “real” return on investment in higher education is the knowledge gained rather than the future income earned. But it is also the case without such knowledge gained that income would unlikely be earned either—these go hand in hand. The only regrettable aspect of this equation is that there are some sets of knowledge that are significantly more valued than others in the job marketplace. One could argue that this is just market forces at work and that if more choose to study engineering, for example, that wages for those entering this occupation would not be as high as they are now (as there would be a surplus of available skilled labor). Yet there are other sectors like elementary education where wages are comparatively low for a college graduate and some are really challenged to repay their college loans in these fields. How many colleges would want to offer large high quality programs for education degrees and certificates if they would potentially be penalized (threatened with the loss of access to federal financial aid) because their graduates could not earn incomes in the marketplace that meet the arbitrary income standards applied in the rule? Within Catholic institutions there might be a similar scenario with theology and ministry formation programs. Could these programs cover their costs at a tuition level that is consistent with borrowing needs and future ministry incomes of graduates?

No one needs to do the math yet as the newly proposed rules, if enacted, would only apply to for-profit programs. However, if the government looks to cut federal college aid to perhaps reduce the deficit, a broader application of the “gainful employment” rule may capture the attention of public officials and voters who are concerned about the costs of higher education. 

Investment in Higher Education

Following the Fourth of July weekend, the "back to school" advertising campaigns will kick in and high school graduates around the country will begin stocking up on dorm room necessities for their first year of college. Going off to college is a big deal—a really big financial deal. It is typically the second largest lifetime investment for many (other than purchasing a home). Families must often rely on some form of aid in grants or loans to finance this education. This investment is typically made with the knowledge that a degree will help an individual obtain employment at a salary level that will make the benefits of this investment far exceed the costs (see: “The Big Payoff” from the Census Bureau). There is no guarantee but the statistics do provide strong evidence that it is well worth it to invest in higher education.

However, some are seeking a more regulated approach to higher education investment. In the last decade, the U.S. government has transformed its general approach to education with a focus on accountability. Starting with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 steps began to measure outcomes and making funding partially dependent on meeting measurable goals. These reforms have pushed standardized testing to the forefront of gauging how well students are doing at the primary and secondary school level. There are signs that the government is now seeking to implement a series of accountability reforms at the higher education level with a focus on indicators of graduation, employment, and income as the key outcomes.

For example, new rules are being considered that would impact the availability of public funding for students attending for-profit colleges and universities. Proponents of these new rules argue that the regulations would help ensure that students receiving federal aid are getting an education that leads to "gainful employment." The new rules would require for-profit colleges seeking federal student aid to show that their students are getting jobs after graduation with salaries that allow them to pay back their loans with 8% or less of their starting income. Opponents of these new rules point out that the 8% threshold is unstudied and arbitrary and that these steps would single out only for-profit campuses who are often enrolling students who are unable to enroll in non-profit colleges or who are seeking career and vocational training that is not provided on these other campuses (accreditation is not an issue as only accredited institutions—regionally or nationally—are eligible to receive federal aid).

There would presumably be multiple inputs for any new accountability equation. One is the level of tuition and the other might be the average earnings of graduates (retention and graduation rates would also likely be key indicators). A college would be able to charge higher tuition if graduates were obtaining higher income employment.  However, if students are earning below-average incomes as they enter the job market, tuition levels would need to be adjusted down to meet the formula’s standard if the college or university wished to continue offering students the opportunity to obtain federal aid.

For example, if the average student left a college with $28,000 in loans ($7,000 per year) and these were to be repaid at 7% interest over 10 years, the monthly payments would be about $325. This would require graduates of this college to earn at least $49,000 a year initially to presumably meet the 8% income standard. If interest rates on the loan were higher or the students tended to earn lower incomes, the loan amounts would need to be reduced—presumably by lowering the college tuition—to maintain eligibility for federal assistance. If enacted, the proposed rules would only impact for-profit colleges and universities now and it is not yet entirely clear how they would be operationalized. Yet in the future the government may seek to impose some form of accountability on all colleges and universities that accept federal student aid.

If these rules were applied to higher education in general, rather than for-profits only, it would likely lead to dramatic changes. There is significant variation in the job market for graduates by the type of degree they earn. Some degree programs may come under pressure as they are less likely to produce graduates earning high salaries that could meet an 8% income threshold. Graduates in colleges focusing more on high paying fields such as engineering and the sciences would likely have no trouble at even the highest tuition levels. However, colleges primarily offering degrees in areas such as social work, education, theology, philosophy, and religious studies might find it challenging to charge higher tuition as these degrees have among the lowest entry-level salaries.

How would four-year Catholic colleges do if retention and graduation rates, as well as loan usage and loan amounts were heavily scrutinized (note that these factors are also commonly used by publications who “rate” colleges)? Below we use the most recent publicly available data from the Department of Education to study this question. The analysis uses the following criteria to select out institutions that would meet even the most highly rigorous standards for investment:

• Retention rates of at least 75% for full-time, first-time students pursuing bachelor's degrees (data are for students who began their studies in fall 2007 and returned in fall 2008).

This means at least three in four students who enroll as freshman come back to attend college in their sophomore year. Where this percentage falls below 75% it indicates a significant number of students enrolling as freshman are either dissatisfied with the college or unable to enroll for some other reason at the college in their sophomore year. In terms of investment one might be concerned in giving aid to students at a college where many choose not to enroll beyond the first year.

• Graduation rates of at least 66% for full-time, first-time students within 150% of "normal time" to completion for their program (data are for students who began their studies in fall 2002).

This means at least two out of three students enrolling end up graduating and earning their degree in a timely manner. Where this rate falls below 66% a significant number of students are not completing the program and earning their degree from this college or university (although they may do so at another college or university or at the same college or university at some later date).

• Use of loans of any type (public or private) by 50% or fewer students (data are for full-time, first-time degree-seeking students, 2007-2008). 

OR

• Average total amount of loans of any type (public or private) are less than $7,000 annually (data are for full-time, first-time degree-seeking students, 2007-2008).

Colleges that have fewer than 51% of students needing to take out loans or where the average annual loan amounts are less than $7,000 are institutions that are very likely to be operating within an 8% income threshold (although again it is not clear how the 8% rule would be put into practice).

Of all Catholic colleges and universities with data available for review, about three dozen meet the thresholds outlined above (note: colleges without accreditation are not required to report these data to the Department of Education and some campuses report that no data is available for one or more of the criteria. Additionally, seminaries and nursing schools were not analyzed). Seven of these institutions meet all four criteria and have retention rates of 75% or higher, graduation rates of 66% or higher, 50% or fewer students using loans of any type, and average total loan amounts of less than $7,000. These seven Catholic colleges and universities are listed in the table below along with the estimated median starting salaries for graduates of these institutions. These colleges are listed in order of their graduation rates.

Of the seven schools above, Georgetown University and Boston College are on U.S. News and World Report’s Best Value National Universities list. Creighton University and Gonzaga University are on this publication’s list for Best Value Master’s Universities Midwest and West.

Overall, 35 institutions meet the general criteria and are organized by Census regions below:

Northeast
Boston College, College of the Holy Cross, Villanova University, Fordham University, University of Scranton, Stonehill College, Duquesne University, Siena College, Manhattan College, DeSales University, Le Moyne College, Misericordia University, Saint Vincent College, Marywood University, Saint Bonaventure University

Midwest
University of Notre Dame, John Carroll University, College of Saint Benedict, University of St. Thomas, Creighton University, Xavier University, Saint Norbert College, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Dominican University, Saint Mary's College

South
Georgetown University, Loyola University Maryland

West
Santa Clara University, Gonzaga University, Thomas Aquinas College, Loyola Marymount University, Seattle University, University of Portland, University of San Diego, University of San Francisco

It is unlikely that the arbitrary "gainful employment"/8% threshold rule would ever be applied to colleges generally and is not even likely to be applied to for-profit colleges. As one can see from the analysis above it would limit the ability for many college programs to continue offering their fullest enrollments.

It is also unclear how the rule would deal with economic changes. What would happen if unemployment rises and incomes stagnate? Must colleges respond by cutting tuition? How would the rule deal with the unemployed graduate or the graduate who enrolls in graduate school? What is the logic of 8%?

Such rules might also be especially challenging for some college programs designed to prepare students for Catholic ministry. These are not high income careers and these formation programs could struggle to cover their costs if tuition needed to be tied to income potentials. 

At the same time the costs of college education are rising faster than inflation and the federal government will likely soon look to budget cuts to reduce the deficit. If the government sees education as an area for potential cuts the "gainful employment" rule or something like it may gain traction.