Student Loans: A Drag on Vocations

In a recent post we reviewed some of CARA’s research and data on how discouragement by family and peers is likely having a significant negative impact on religious and priestly vocations. Today, the National Religious Vocation Conference (NRVC) released a study conducted by CARA regarding another infrequently noted factor: the effect of student loan debt.

In this study, CARA surveyed major superiors of religious institutes and societies of apostolic life (a total of 865 religious institutes) in June 2011. CARA received completed responses from 477 religious institutes for a response rate of 56%. The units that responded to the survey reported a total of 47,113 perpetually professed men and women religious, approximately two-thirds of all women and men religious in the United States.  Many of the institutes or other entities that did not respond appear to be either small, mostly contemplative, communities that may not have had anyone in initial formation for some time, or those who are still in the process of becoming institutes of consecrated life.

On average, responding institutes with at least one serious inquirer in the last ten years report that for about a third of these inquiries (32%) the person had educational debt at the time of their inquiry. This represents 4,328 serious inquiries in which the person had educational debt. The average amount of this debt at the time of inquiry was $28,000.

Assuming that the average amount of time enrolled in college is four years, a mean average (mean of the mean) educational debt of $28,000 is equivalent to $7,000 per year. This is comparable to other students’ educational borrowing habits. In the 2007-2008 academic year, 53% of undergraduate students attending a public, 4-year institution took out student loans averaging $7,200. In that same year, 65% of undergraduate students at private, not-for-profit institutions (including Roman Catholic colleges and universities) took out student loans averaging $10,000 (source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics).

Religious institutes that have had at least three serious inquirers in the last ten years who had educational debt at the time of their inquiry report that this debt is having a dampening effect on the institute. A third (34%) report that at least some serious inquirers have not pursued the application process because of their educational debt. Three in ten (29%) say that formal applicants have not completed the application process and a fifth (22%) say that the unit has experienced financial strain due to the educational debt of candidates or members. 

Four in ten responding institutes (42 percent) take on the educational debt of candidates or members. This varies by conference as shown in the figure below.

Among institutes that take on educational debt, six in ten (60%) limit the amount of educational debt they would assume for a candidate. The midpoint of that limit, among responding institutes, is $20,000. CMSM institutes have the highest limit, with a midpoint of $25,000 among member institutes. For LCWR member institutes this median limit is $16,000. At CMSWR member institutes the midpoint limit is $10,000 and for contemplative communities this is $4,000.

The full report, by CARA researchers Mary L. Gautier and Melissa A. Cidade, is available for download here.

Above photo courtesy of CarbonNYC at Flickr Creative Commons. 

The Pill, Polls, Policy, and Doctrine

An assortment of Catholic commentators (even the Vice President?) have expressed concern about the Obama administration’s decision to require some Catholic institutions (i.e., charities, colleges, hospitals) to provide access to and pay for birth control in employee health plans [Update: ...a recently announced accommodation plan requires the insurance providers for these institutions to offer and pay for these directly. Objections have been raised that this shift functionally changes very little. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argues that it “asks the parties involved to compromise their reasoning faculties and play a game of ‘let’s pretend.’”]

Speaking as a political scientist, the new rule does seem like a bit of an odd choice in an election year. I’m not sure if many votes will be gained by the decision (people who would have otherwise not voted for President Obama in 2012 changing their mind to support him). Polls also indicate that new votes picked up will likely be outweighed by those potentially lost. Those speaking out against the decision have included well-known Catholics on the political left—unifying many Catholic leaders and pundits in a way that is not often seen. President Obama needs a majority of the Catholic vote in 2012. Nearly all presidential candidates have. This decision may have damaged those prospects. PRRI's polling indicates that “among Catholic voters … only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it.” [Update: Opposition to the requirement among Catholic voters is now polling at 65%. Even more data from Pew here indicating a majority Catholic's who have heard of the rule oppose it. Outlier results on the topic are at CBS/NYT. Question wording is having an influence on responses.]

How did the administration come to this decision? I would not be surprised if polling data were used. In general, the Obama administration appears to rely heavily on testing language and policies in polls. The extensive use of survey research has been noted elsewhere in articles such as “Polling Helps Obama Frame Message in Health-Care Debate” or “Obama Using Polling Data.” Is President Obama’s use of polling all that different than his predecessors or his opponents? There are indications that it is. According to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2008 campaign, then candidate Obama spent $28 million on polling, surveys, and research (about 4% of total campaign expenditures). By comparison Republican candidate John McCain spent only $4.2 million polling, surveys, and research (about 1% of total campaign expenditures). 

In the 2012 campaign, President Obama has already reported spending $4 million on polling, surveys, and research while being unopposed in his party’s primaries. The percentage of his expenditures dedicated to this research in the current cycle has increased to 6.4% of his total campaign outlays. By comparison the combined spending on polling, surveys, and research by the four candidates for the Republican nomination totaled $1.8 million during the same period. No candidate for president has ever dedicated so much of their campaign resources to polling as Barack Obama. For more perspective, note that the $4 million already spent by President Obama in the 2012 election cycle exceeds the total amount Democratic candidate John Kerry spent in his entire 2004 campaign.

I’m a survey researcher so I obviously know how valuable polling data can be. But these data can mislead at times. My hunch (and it is only that), is that some in the Obama administration looked at the polling data on Catholics and contraceptives prior to the announcement and thought the policy would be a home run. They might have reviewed this report from the Guttmacher Institute [Update: a good analysis of the 98% contraceptive use figure from the study is available at The Washington Post] or fielded their own surveys. They may have assumed that the personal decisions of many Catholics regarding contraceptives would provide the cover they needed to take on any opposition of the bishops. I think they envisioned that they could then just point to the polls (as they do now on the campaign website) and say to the bishops “you are out of touch.”

If made, I think this was likely a poor strategic decision on two counts. First, there are some Catholics (and this really only has to be a small percentage of the population to alter the 2012 election calculus) who are offended by any aspect of the government requiring the Church to do something that would violate its teachings—even when they personally do not follow these teachings. The decision touches the contentious constitutional boundaries between the American federal government and the practice of religion. Second, I think many American politicians, journalists, and commentators forget that there is no “American Catholic Church.” There is the Catholic Church in the United States—just one part of a global faith that is much larger outside of U.S. borders. In the grand scheme of things the polling numbers on attitudes and behaviors of Catholics in America (under 6% of the global Catholic population) cannot realistically be thought to have an impact on issues of doctrine. Would the global Church change or ignore one of its core teachings to “get in touch” with 50% plus one of the American population as it is polling currently? No. Not a chance. There is a much larger context to consider. The clashing policies and doctrines reside in different geographies. More so, purely from an American perspective, polls cannot trump the Constitution and in the end it will likely be the courts who will decide if the rule and accommodation do not violate protections for religious institutions (e.g., EWTN's case).

How Much Schooling Do You Need to Best Understand a Papal Homily?

There is an article over at Politico regarding the "grade level" quality of communication for last night's State of the Union speech. The author seems to think that the 8th grade comprehension level which is noted as, "the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934," is  of some concern. As someone who has used the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level formula in the past I don't think there is too much to worry about. For one, the formula is a bit flawed (designed to make sure a textbook fits the grade using it) and gives the highest scores to long, complex text using large words. Someone speaking in a stream of conscious manner will score highly but also may be entirely incoherent. Clear and concise speech gets lower "grades" but this speech is often more favorable in terms of communication.

Politico seems to think that "Obama's use of simple language is in part a reflection of his audience. ... And it's part of a larger trend in simpler State of the Union language as the speech as transitioned from a simple address to Congress into a prime-time televised event." It is very much more the later—the effects of the medium. The American audience is significantly more educated now than it has been at any time in history. The figure below shows the average grade level for presidential Inaugural Addresses since 1789. The highest score ever was for Washington's first at 25.0 (that's like two Ph.D.s!). Since 1973, these speeches have averaged 8.9. As these evolved from something that most people read in their newspaper to something that was broadcast (first on radio and then on television), the communication has simplified. Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, and George H. W. Bush all gave Inaugural Addresses with lower scores than Obama's 2009 speech.

This made me wonder... How would communications from Pope Benedict XVI grade out? I ran the numbers on his homilies since September. The trend is below:

The Holy Father's homilies (translated in English) have been averaging 11.6 in recent months with a high score of 15.5 and a low of 9.1. Now it is the case that these homilies are very often read by more people than they are heard in person. Translation issues may also affect the scores. It is also the case that one might expect the content of his homilies to be a bit more complex than a modern president's State of the Union or Inaugural Address.

For comparison I went back and ran the numbers on eight homilies given by Pope John Paul II during his October 1979 apostolic visit to the United States. The average grade level for these is 10.7 with a low of 8.1 and a high of 13.1.

It appears one needs about an 11th grade education, on average, to best understand a papal homily and about an 8th grade education to do the same with an American president's speech.

[Note: the blog above is written at a 11.0 grade level.]