If You See Elephants (or Donkeys) When Looking at the Church Remove Your Goggles

 

In these deeply partisan times some may be tempted to place every institution and individual cleanly on the left or right of the U.S. political spectrum. However, there are some that may not easily fit these stereotypes—that cannot be seen clearly while wearing partisan-tinted goggles. The Catholic Church opposes abortion and same-sex marriage. This would seem to make it a natural "ally" of the Republican Party in the United States. Yet, the Church is clearly "out of place" on some other issues from this perspective. As some have recently noticed, the American bishops are supporting immigration reforms being put forth by Democrats. This appears to be creating some anomie among the media and a growing sense of urgency for a nested games "explanation" of the Church's actions, which as far as I can tell led to the following string of events:

1) The New York Times recently revealed in the middle of a good story on the proposed reforms that "Catholic leaders..." "say they are motivated by the Bible’s teachings and by the reality that many Latino immigrants are Catholics and represent a critical demographic for the church." No problems here, but an actual source would always be nice. Many Latino immigrants are indeed Catholic and the Church certainly wants to be sure that its members are treated with dignity and fairness. But then things start to get weird...

2) The Pew Research Center's FactTank blog (...normally very well done and just plain cool) followed-up by posting an entry saying the Church had "acknowledged to The New York Times that demographics are a factor" in their support of legislation. In Pew's defense they were providing some good data on the topic of immigration reform. However, the original title of the post (now changed) rather unfortunately appeared to highlight the role of demographics as a sole motivation—as if the Church was just looking to "pad" its numbers (...I don't think this is what they intended to communicate). This headline drew the attention of The Drudge Report, which linked to the post over the weekend.

3) Now, two steps and several days removed, The Economist (...yes that Economist) has stepped forward to "explain" and answer for us all, "Why is the Roman Catholic Church supporting immigration reform?" They provide a solution to this mystery by noting (and citing Pew, citing the Times): "One possible reason why the Catholic church is keen to cultivate Hispanic migrants could be that, if some of the immigrants are more socially conservative, their voices could become louder on topics such as contraception and abortion, over which the church has clashed with the Obama administration. Welcoming more Hispanics into the country would also swell congregations, extending the church’s influence from pulpits to polling stations" (...never mind that Hispanic Catholics lean heavily Democratic. Maybe some of Pew's data doesn't make it across the pond?). So there it is. All the dots are now connected. It's all probably a vast right-wing conspiracy. Now I get it! Thanks Economist.

Wait... The Economist is a European publication. You'd think they would know better with the Catholic Church also strongly and similarly advocating for the rights and well-being of immigrants in Europe. A recent Los Angeles Times story profiles this reality under the headline, "In Italy, protecting immigrants crosses the faith line." Here the story notes that: "In Europe, as in the United States, the Roman Catholic Church has assumed a leading role as a protector of, and advocate for, immigrants. But whereas the largest bloc of migrants to the United States are Catholic, the majority of European immigrants are Muslim." What "underlying motivations" can The Economist possibly uncover here? What was that about demographics again?

There really is no mystery or conspiracy to any of this. No need to look next at the symbology in da Vinci paintings for more answers. Instead I'd recommend "The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” available on the Vatican website (...The New Testament would work as well). The Church encompasses a global faith that was around for many hundreds of years before the U.S. ever appeared on a map and 94% of the world's more than 1 billion Catholics live outside of American borders. If a number of Catholics move from country A to country B, the number of Catholics in the world does not get any larger! The Church has no interest in amassing the faithful in any single country for political purposes or any other reason I can think of. What it is doing is supporting people, Catholic or not, who are vulnerable and in need ("harbor the harborless"). The sanctuary and support the Church provides to people often living on the margins is at the center of its mission in the world (...Am I the only one really following Pope Francis on Twitter?).

With that said there is certainly a lot more material for journalists to work with beyond immigration. Who will uncover the "conservative-leaning" conspiracies behind the Church's support for state social welfare programs, just wages, gun control, and labor union rights? What is really behind the Church's opposition to the death penalty? How long until some hard working journalist discovers the secret Church document that outlines the real and complete political agenda of the Church in the United States (or this online stash of copies of actual correspondence sent by bishops to government leaders)?

Even Church involvement in foreign affairs is coming under the careful microscope of American journalism. Some are now highlighting the Pope's seemingly "anti-Obama" stance opposing military intervention in Syria. Mark Phillips of CBS News lamented that Pope Francis has been "uncommonly active" using "strong language" and had "taken sides" as he "entered into the world of partisan international politics" in a manner that is "music to the Russian president's ears." One more conspiracy down. Everyone already knows the Church is highly motivated to support a former KGB officer. Makes perfect sense. On top of that, CBS referred to the Pope's widely attended prayer vigil as a "religious street protest," as if the Pope had organized a Tea Party rally. Mark Phillips really can't recall the Catholic Church ever opposing war in the past? Did it support U.S. military intervention under Republican administrations?  

My advice for reporters would be that if you are writing a story and you think you have identified some hidden agenda behind the Church's decisions or actions reach out to someone in your newsroom who really knows the Church well (e.g., the religion reporter on staff or someone else who regularly writes about the Church). Air out your theory with them before it goes to print. The Church will rarely fit well in the elephant or donkey costume. As Ross Douhat over at The New York Times recently noted:

"The cycle is familiar: A pope says something about a controversial issue that doesn’t fit the media’s semi-informed preconceptions about Roman Catholic teaching, a firestorm of coverage follows, and then better-informed observers are left to pick up the pieces and explain that no, actually, the pope is just reasserting an idea — an openness to Darwinian evolution, the possibility that nonbelievers might go to heaven, pick your controversy — that the church already accepted or believed or allowed to be considered."

Well said.

Image above courtesy of Dhammika Heenpella at Flickr Creative Commons. 

Back to School: Catholic College "Ranks" and Risks

The Obama Administration recently turned its focus to non-profit higher education releasing plans to create government rankings for colleges that would eventually be linked to the availability of federal financial aid. As The Washington Post reports, "Obama aims to use executive authority to begin rating colleges by the fall of 2015 on criteria such as average tuition, scholarships and loan debt; the share of students receiving need-based Pell grants; graduation and transfer rates; graduate earnings; and the number of graduates who obtain advanced degrees." The aim of the plan is to make more information available to parents and students and to create pressures that might make college more affordable. For-profit colleges have already faced a similar treatment (...oddly enough triggering the recent sale of The Washington Post).

Traditional Rankings
How might this affect the 226 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States listed in The Official Catholic Directory? It would certainly shake up the traditional rankings one sees in the U.S. News & World Report (...methodology. Note that new rankings were released on Sept. 10). According to the most recent set of rankings the top 10 national Catholic colleges and universities are:

    1.  University of Notre Dame [#17 national rank]
    2.  Georgetown University [#21]
    3.  Boston College [#31]
    4.  Fordham University [#58]
    5.  Marquette University [#83]
    6.  Saint Louis University [#92]
    6.  University of San Diego [#92]
    8.  Loyola University (IL) [#106]
    8.  University of San Francisco [#106]
  10.  University of St. Thomas (MN) [#113]

The traditional rankings also include a separate listing for national liberal arts colleges. Here the top 10 Catholic institutions are:

    1.  College of the Holy Cross (MA) [#32 national rank]
    2.  St. John's University (MN) [#75]
    3.  Thomas Aquinas College (CA) [#82]
    4.  Saint Mary's College (IN) [#87]
    5.  Saint Michael's College (VT) [#90]
    6.  College of St. Benedict (MN) [#96]
    7.  Stonehill College (MA) [#100]
    8.  Sienna College (NY) [#112]
    9.  Saint Anselm College (NH) [#130]
  10.  St. Norbert College (WI) [#138]

Graduation Rates
One of the factors common to the traditional rankings and those proposed by President Obama is the use of graduation rates. For both parents and the government alike there is certainly an interest in students finishing their program and earning a degree. The Catholic top 10 for graduation rates includes some of the campuses ranking highly in the traditional ranks:

    1.  University of Notre Dame [95%]
    2.  Georgetown University [93%]
    2.  College of the Holy Cross [93%]
    4.  Boston College [92%]
    5.  Villanova University [88%]
    6.  Providence College [87%]
    7.  Santa Clara University [86%]
    8.  Loyola University (MD) [84%]
    9.  University of Scranton [83%]
  10.  St. Michael's College (VT) [82%]

Graduate Earnings
Moving on to "graduate earnings" the ranks begin to shift. One of the available measures here, from PayScale, is the 30 year return on investment (ROI) representing "net return on investment after the opportunity cost (High School Graduate Earnings) and cost of investment (tuition, room, board, books, etc.) have been taken into account" (...methodology). These data are far from perfect (more on this below) but they represent a glimpse at what the government rankings may find. These of course are important because they measure the ability to pay for the financing of college during one's career and also the degree to which the college provides "gainful employment." Here is the top 10 for Catholic colleges and universities:

    1.  Santa Clara University [$1,282,000]
    2.  University of Notre Dame [$1,250,000]
    3.  Manhattan College [$1,216,000]
    4.  Villanova University [$1,019,000]
    5.  Iona College (NY) [$958,700]
    6.  Saint Martin's University (WA) [$907,100]
    7.  Saint Mary's College of California [$904,300]
    8.  Christian Brothers University (TN) [$883,300]
    9.  Georgetown University [$881,100]
  10.  St. John's University (MN) [$860,800]

Net Annual Price
Before any student graduates or earns money from their degree, they must first pay for or finance their college education. Here the average net annual price of college is useful (...methodology). This measure "moves beyond an institution’s 'sticker price' and provides students and families with an idea of how much a first-time, full-time undergraduate student who was awarded aid pays to attend a particular institution after grant or scholarship aid is subtracted from the published cost of attendance." The top 10 here (i.e., with the lowest price) does not include almost every college as yet named above—the one exception being Christian Brothers University (...this list excludes specialty colleges focusing on one particular type of 4-year degree, such as nursing):

    1.  Brescia University (KY) [$10,442]
    2.  Calumet College of Saint Joseph (IN) [$10,617]
    3.  Our Lady of the Lake College (LA) [$11,392]
    4.  Our Lady of the Lake University (TX) [$12,580]
    5.  Mount Mary College (WI) [$13,586]
    6.  Christian Brothers University (TN) [$13,748]
    7.  Villa Maria College (NY) [$13,901]
    8.  Madonna University (MI) [$14,034]
    9.  Marygrove College (MI) [$14,059]
  10.  University of Mary (ND) [$14,077]

Students Receiving Pell Grants at "Best Value" Campuses
The Obama Administration also plans to include a measure in the rankings that indicates how many students receive Pell grants in an effort to find "best value" colleges and universities. These grants are government needs-based assistance. Below we show the top 10 ranked Catholic colleges and universities on The Washington Monthly's "Best Bang for the Buck" list (factoring in Pell grants, graduation rates, loan default rates, and net price) in terms of percentage of students receiving these grants. These are high-quality low-cost schools that enroll many students in need. Once again this list has no resemblance to the traditional rankings:

    1.  Dominican University (IL) [55%]
    1.  Georgian Court University (NJ) [55%]
    3.  St. Catherine University (MN) [54%]
    4.  Ursuline College (OH) [53%]
    5.  Marian University (WI) [50%]
    6.  Mount Marty College (SD) [49%]
    7.  Walsh University (OH) [46%]
    8.  Gannon University (PA) [45%]
    9.  La Roche College (PA) [44%]
  10.  Marian University (IN) [43%]

The real test of the newly proposed ranking system is how it will combine all of these factors (note that scores in 2015 would likely be based on what happening in higher education in 2013-14). How will these be weighted to create one score to allow for ranking? Expect this to be one of the most contentious issues of debate if the Administration seeks to link the rankings to availability of financial aid.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the proposed ranking is the inclusion of "graduate earnings." Where will these data come from? There are survey-based measures (e.g., PayScale) but these can lead to inferences about colleges and universities based on very small sample sizes. It is not easy to find a significant number of graduates from small colleges and universities in a random sample national survey. There is simply no existing infrastructure that could provide an income census that would allow for reliable and valid estimates for graduate income by college. Perhaps the reform could require individuals to name colleges attended on their IRS tax forms. Without something like this, there is no existing methods that will provide reliable and valid data for every college in the country.

Yet even if we did start putting our colleges on our tax forms how do we disentangle these data for students who attend multiple colleges and earn multiple degrees? I may attend a junior college and then transfer into a small four-year liberal arts college and then go onto medical school. As a surgeon I will likely earn a very high income. My undergraduate education played some role in this (it helped me get into graduate school) but would it be fair to link my mid-career salary back in full to the junior college and liberal arts campus?

No matter what shape the formula takes, any major policy change could have a number of unintended consequences. For example, The Affordable Act will undoubtedly provide more people access to health insurance but the employer mandate may also make it more difficult to get a full-time job (i.e., 30 hours or more) and some employers appear to be dropping coverage for spouses.

If the proposed college rankings are linked to federal financial aid, colleges may look to boost their position by cutting tuition costs by freezing hires of new professors and using more part-time adjuncts and graduate students to teach classes. To improve prospects for graduate earnings and employment they may drop degree programs and majors that "under-perform" in the job market. Colleges may forgo offerings in social work, humanities, and liberal arts for more engineering, computing, mathematics, and health programs (...the top school in the country for 30-year ROI is Harvey Mudd College which focuses on engineering, science, and math. Graduates from this campus receive an average $2.1 million 30-year ROI). Many may say that's just what America needs! But there will always be a need for liberal arts—even for engineers.

If a college is faced with losing access to aid why would they ever accept students who could "jeopardize" their scores? Students (and their parents) might be required by colleges to undergo background and credit checks before being accepted as a means to predict their likelihood of default on any loans. They may become even less likely to enroll potential students who do not have the best test scores and grades as these individuals may be deemed less likely to get a high paying job after graduation. The reform may make colleges for the "privileged" and "elite" even more fitting of this stereotype. It has the potential to put a hard brake on the socioeconomic mobility college has traditionally provided students (...one positive unintended consequence might be an increase in resources for career services and post-graduate job placement on campuses in an effort to maximize graduate earnings).

Catholic colleges and universities are also private institutions operating without state subsidies. This creates a built-in disadvantage when it comes to tuition cost. Students attending public institutions pay lower tuition, on average, as the taxpayers of the state they are in often help underwrite the operations of those colleges and universities (these benefits are usually focused on students with in-state residency). It is unclear if the new system would take this institutional difference into account and factor in costs to taxpayers as well as parents and students.

The proposal also may end up limiting choice. Under the current system, the federal government invests in students not institutions with grants and loans leaving it up to the individual to select the accredited college of their choice. The proposed reform would presumably limit aid for colleges that do not rank highly and thus steer students to federally preferred institutions (...if the policies mirror the reforms used in for-profit higher education minimum performance benchmarks may be set. Campuses who fail to meet these benchmarks would either have their access to aid reduced or cut off). The national perspective of the rankings would ignore the reality that many students choose a college within a local region and save significant money by living with their parents or other family. Thus a college that may not be deemed by the government as "affordable" in the abstract may actually be the most affordable to that student geographically speaking. If aid is limited on this campus they may be forced to look elsewhere and pay significant room and board costs.

The proposed ranking system also over-emphasizes monetary factors. It would deny the reality that some people do not make career and education decisions based on simple dollar costs and benefits. For example, many Catholics choosing to go into ministry are not chasing engineer-like incomes. Yet it may cost them significant sums to obtain degrees and certifications to work in this field. They may be willing to make a greater sacrifice to earn these for their love of a vocation—even if the government tells them that this is a "bad value" (note the starting annual salaries for undergraduate religious studies/theology degrees average $41,000 with mid-career earnings rising to $48,000).

The rankings may also be a big problem for many of the newer small Catholic colleges that have emerged in recent decades. Some of these campuses market themselves as "traditional" or "orthodox"—a place where parents can feel "safer" sending their children and having them graduate with even more faith than they entered with. I am unaware of any academic or other professional study that has systematically measured the success of these claims. However, there is some existing data for how well some of these campuses may rank under the proposed system and the news there could be problematic. As with any new campus there are growing pains in establishing an identity and credentials (e.g., obtaining accreditation, developing a reputation with employers). These colleges also have small numbers of alumni making it difficult to make inferences about career success and salaries of graduates. Some of these schools could struggle under the proposed ranking system.

When the government says it is introducing legislation to make something more "affordable" this doesn't necessarily mean it will cost less. I am not sure the proposed college rankings and reforms would, as intended, make college any cheaper. Yet, with or without government intervention, a market correction to college costs is likely on the horizon. Similar to the dynamics of the housing crisis there is a real limit to what Americans can pay for college—their income. College costs can only consume so much of income before the bubble bursts. For example, from the 1970s to the early 2000s housing prices hovered around 300% of income in the United States. During the housing bubble, with exotic mortgages available (e.g., interest only, ARMs), housing prices approached 500% of incomes. There is only so much house a family can afford if incomes are not growing with prices (...and housing will not really recover until incomes grow, which will require significant reductions in unemployment. The current housing "recovery" may be a new bubble fueled by institutional investors targeting real estate). The same economics works for tuition or tulips.

The figure below shows median incomes and average college costs (tuition, room, and board) in recent years. In 1981, median income was just under $20,000 per year and annual college costs were just under $3,500. Thus, college costs represented 18% of income. In 2011, college costs made up 44% of income, on average.

Perhaps the simplest affordability reform available would be to cap the amount of federal financial aid available with annual adjustments linked to student population and an inflation index (CPI) or a measure of income growth to contain the formation of bubbles. Let parents and students continue to choose their campus (and major) but send a signal to colleges and universities that those choices will be made in an environment without rapid growth in the amount of federal financing available.

Another sorely needed reform would be to allow judges to fully discharge student loan debt in bankruptcies where this is deemed necessary. Neither political party should claim that they are "working for" college students/graduates until such a change is made. Someone fighting cancer who loses their job should not have to possibly deal with government debt collectors—especially when the government is slated to make a healthy profit off the guaranteed student loan business (as a monopoly lender since 2010). College loans should be treated no differently than other types of consumer debt. In President Obama's remarks announcing the proposed reforms he noted that without change "the government will run out of money." If that happens it likely won't be because of college loans as these are adding to public coffers not draining them.

In isolation, more information is also a welcome development. The marketplace certainly needs more than the traditional college rankings. But rather than coming up with another arbitrary single mechanism that can rank all colleges, perhaps the government could simply make existing resources, that would likely provide the backbone of the new rankings, more accessible and user friendly? Give people the information to find the exact type of campus that fits them rather than trying to press the higher education system into one mold.

Market corrections can be jarring and very painful and the government can try to foster a softer landing. Hopefully these reforms will be thoroughly examined and damaging unintended consequences identified. Sometimes the side-effects of a treatment can be worse than the disease. A single score-based ranking of colleges pegged to availability of aid could be lethal to some campuses and the dreams of many young Americans. Catholic colleges would certainly have no immunity to these changes.

Image above courtesy of Sean MacEntee at Flickr Creative Commons. 

What Was Behind the 1960s Vocation Boom? Not Your Mom or Dad Apparently...

In 1966 there were nearly 60,000 priests in ministry in the United States and only about 17,900 parishes. Few were concerned with the notion of a "priest shortage." There were also more than 176,000 religious sisters and 12,500 religious brothers. This was the ultimate time of plenty for the Church in America. Catholic parents must have been a big part of that.

I didn't talk to your mom about this but sociologist Father Joseph H. Fichter, S.J. may have. Especially if you grew up in Illinois. Deep in the CARA archives sits an historical gem of social science, "Catholic Parents and the Church Vocation" published in 1967 using data from 1964 Fichter survey (CARA is in the process of digitizing its public print archives for future online distribution...stay tuned on that).

As Louis Luzbetak, S.V.D., CARA's Executive Director at the time notes, "There is no diocese in the United States that has at hand such a wealth of information about the image of its priests and religious, and about the corresponding parental attitudes toward Church vocations...as does the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois." Corporations frequently test products in Columbus, Ohio because it is supposed to be representative of the country as a whole. Think of Peoria being a similar type of locale for Catholicism in the 1960s ("Will it play Peoria?," middle America, sitting squarely between Chicago and St. Louis). Fichter and a group of academics and practitioners developed the survey and tested it first as a pilot survey of 1,287 Catholic parents in New Orleans in 1963. Then after revisions in 1964, fielded the survey in Peoria to 8,689 Catholic parents through their parishes. In half of the surveys the father was asked to complete the form and in the other half the mother.

These parents were asked if they had ever considered a vocation (i.e., men as priests or brothers and women as religious sisters). Six in ten indicated they had never considered this. Only 6% of the Catholic parents surveyed said they had considered a vocation seriously and 1% indicated they had entered the seminary or convent and had left. Among fathers more specifically, 5% had considered becoming a priest seriously and 2% had entered seminary and left. Seven percent of mothers had considered becoming a religious sister and 1% had entered a convent but left. By comparison, 3% of adult Catholic men today say they "very" seriously considered becoming a priest or brother and less than 1% of adult Catholic women say they "very" seriously becoming a religious sister (note that serious interest in vocations is a bit higher among never-married Catholic adults and teens and this still translates into a large number in absolute terms).

 

Parents were then asked if they thought they should promote vocations to their children. Surprisingly, many did not feel they should. I think this stands in stark contrast to our "memories" of this period. Only 17% said they thought they should encourage vocations. Additionally, 25% said they should just "initiate a discussion" of vocations. Parents were most likely to say their child should "bring it up first" (31%). Four percent said they should pray for their child to be interested in a vocation but mention nothing to them about this and 23% said it should be left "completely in the hands of God." I would not be surprised to see survey results like this in 2013 but it sounds a bit off coming from the parents of 1964 (...especially when we know now that encouragement is so important in fostering vocations).

Regardless of encouragement from a parent, what if a 13-year-old Catholic had interest in a vocation in 1964? What would a mom or dad think is the right course to follow? A majority of parents surveyed wanted their son or daughter to finish high school first. About one in seven thought their child should go off to study for their vocation right away at 13 and 13% wanted them to have at least a few years of high school before doing this. Thus, more than eight in ten Catholic parents in 1964 thought the path to a vocation begins as a teenager (note that even today most Catholics say they first consider a vocation as a teen).

Ironically, parents had quite different attitudes about dating. As shown in the figure below, 86% of parents surveyed thought their sons should not "go steady" with someone until he was 18 or older and 73% of parents said the same about their daughters. Thus, a significant portion of parents thought that consideration of a vocation and perhaps pursuit of this should and would begin before their son or daughter ever had a steady girlfriend or boyfriend.

Parents were most likely to say that their sons might not consider a vocation because he would be attracted to other occupations (27%). They thought their daughters might not do so because of they would be attracted to the opposite sex (33%).

If their child was interested in a vocation, most parents had no preference for a specific area of Church ministry that they enter. If they did indicate a preference, parents more often than not preferred their sons to become diocesan priests (27%) and their daughters to enter an "active teaching order" (24%).

If their daughter entered an order, many did not expect her to have much contact with them. One of the more interesting details of the study is in its testing. When the pilot was fielded in New Orleans, parents were asked if they would favor religious sisters being allowed to eat at the Blue Room, play golf on public links, attend Sugar Bowl games, and direct girl scouts. This series of questions was modified (beyond regional relevance) because the researchers found that "these suggestions were apparently too 'far out'" for the respondents to consider. The figure below shows the final question wording and results for this series in Peoria.

While most in 1964, thought that it was just fine for sisters to read newspapers, watch television, have a yearly vacation back at home, attend cultural events in the evening, and accept dinner invitations, there were more mixed opinions about them being able to eat in public restaurants, wear up-to-date clothing, or join civic organizations. 

While the results for what sisters should be "allowed" to do or for the age when young Catholics should be allowed to "go steady" may seem odd 50 years on, what is even more remarkable to me is how the parents of 1964 were not all that different to those of 2013 in terms of what they see as their responsibility to be in encouraging their children for a vocation. In fact it creates a bit of a mystery. In the heart of the biggest vocations boom this country has ever known, parental encouragement and their own personal consideration of a vocation is not far off from what it is among parents today. I guess there is some "good news" in that. There are some other X-factors out there that were responsible for that boom which could surface again some day.