Search

Although the government collects data on the state origins of undergraduate students at each college, no publicly available data exist for where graduates of specific colleges end up, even though this information is vital for local economic and workforce development and estimating the state and local return on public funding of higher education. To address these questions, the authors used data from LinkedIn to develop a new dataset of the destinations of graduates for most colleges and universities in the United States. The authors use these data to characterize how labor markets vary across types of colleges based on ownership (public vs. private non-profit), sector (community college vs. baccalaureate-offering), and selectivity. Findings reveal that the labor markets where a college sends its graduates help explain how colleges affect economic outcomes for students from low-income families. Regional public universities tend to produce more graduates who stay local than do state flagships.

Majoring in business typically pays off. While graduates' earnings and federal student loan debt vary by institution and degree level, the majority of business programs lead to median earnings that are roughly 10 times graduates' debt payments two years after program completion. "The Most Popular Degree Pays Off: Ranking the Economic Value of 5,500 Business Programs at More Than 1,700 Colleges" finds that the economic value of business programs is high compared to the financial returns from other programs, though not as high as returns associated with health, engineering, and computer and information sciences programs. Two years after graduation, associate's degree holders in business have median annual earnings of $30,000 after debt payments. The financial returns from a business degree rise to $43,200 after debt payments for bachelor's degree holders and $51,600 for master's degree holders.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, public colleges and universities have prioritized the health and safety of students, faculty, staff and visitors while continuing to offer an exceptional, affordable learning environment. Public higher education has been agile and responsive. In March 2020, the state system institutions transitioned more than 173,000 students from in-person instruction to alternative or online instruction, with limited exceptions for certain labs and practicums. These institutions added over 4,800 more nurses, doctors and other credentialed allied health professionals to the state's health care workforce during the COVID-19 crisis in spring 2020. This annual report reflects significant progress as a state system, continued commitment to excellence and innovation, and strong partnerships with common education, CareerTech, and the business community to meet Oklahoma's workforce needs. No other entity in state government drives economic growth and strengthens workforce development as directly and comprehensively as public higher education. There is no better investment to move Oklahoma forward in this dynamic, global economy. The following contents are included in this annual report: (1) Role of the State Regents; (2) Higher Education Update; (3) Strategic Direction; (4) Higher Education in Oklahoma; (5) Academics; (6) Financial Aid; (7) Student Preparation; (8) Economic Development; (9) Fiscal; (10) Institutional Highlights; and (11) Administrative Organization. [For the 2019 report, see ED609065.]

COVID-19 and the response to the pandemic in Oklahoma and the nation mark this as an unprecedented time in American history. Oklahoma's state system of higher education has responded to the challenges created with flexibility and innovation, transitioning more than 173,000 students to virtual, online, and alternative course delivery formats for the last half of the spring 2020 semester and for many of the public colleges and universities into the summer session, to continue to protect students, faculty, staff and visitors. This annual report reflects significant progress as a state system, ongoing commitment to excellence and innovation, and a strong partnerships within the education sector and with the business community to meet Oklahoma's evolving workforce needs. In this unprecedented fiscal climate, Oklahoma will continue to make the case that higher education is the best investment policy leaders can make to strengthen the state's economy and position Oklahoma as a top 10 state. The following contents are included in this annual report: (1) Role of the State Regents; (2) Higher Education Update; (3) Strategic Direction; (4) Higher Education in Oklahoma; (5) Academics; (6) Financial Aid; (7) Student Preparation; (8) Economic Development; (9) Fiscal; and (10) Institutional Highlights; and (11) Administrative Organization. [For the 2018 report, see ED600316.]

The Oklahoma State Regents remain completely committed to maintaining the accessibility and affordability of public higher education for all Oklahomans and increasing the number of college graduates to provide the educated workforce our state requires to be competitive in a dynamic, global economy. This annual report reflects the significant progress of the state system of higher education and the commitment to accessibility, affordability, academic quality and increased degree completion. [For "Degrees of Progress: The State of Higher Education in Oklahoma. 2017 Annual Report," see ED591040.]

Higher education is the state's road to jobs and prosperity. No entity in state government can help Oklahoma reach its goals of educational excellence and workforce development faster or more comprehensively than public higher education. More college graduates means an increase in our state's per capita income and a stronger state economy. This annual report looks at higher education in Oklahoma today and includes profiles of Oklahoma's 25 colleges and universities.

Washington's Community and Technical Colleges (the colleges) serve 305,087 credit and 95,890 non-credit students. The colleges' service region, for the purpose of this report, consists of Washington State. This report assesses the impact of the colleges as a whole on the state economy and the benefits generated by the colleges for students, taxpayers, and society. The approach is twofold. The study begins with an economic impact analysis of the colleges on the Washington economy. To derive results, a specialized Multi-Regional Social Accounting Matrix (MR-SAM) model is used to calculate the added income created in the Washington economy as a result of increased consumer spending and the added knowledge, skills, and abilities of students. Results of the economic impact analysis are broken out according to the following impacts: (1) impact of the colleges' day-to-day operations; (2) impact of student spending; and (3) impact of alumni who are still employed in the Washington workforce. The second component of the study measures the benefits generated by the colleges for the following stakeholder groups: students, taxpayers, and society. For students, an investment analysis was performed to determine how the money spent by students on their education performs as an investment over time. The students' investment in this case consists of their out-of-pocket expenses and the opportunity cost of attending the colleges as opposed to working. In return for these investments, students receive a lifetime of higher earnings. For taxpayers, the study measures the benefits to state taxpayers in the form of increased tax revenues and public sector savings stemming from a reduced demand for social services. Finally, for society, the study assesses how the students' higher earnings and improved quality of life create benefits throughout Washington as a whole. The results of this study show that the colleges create a positive net impact on the state economy and generate a positive return on investment for students, taxpayers, and society. The following are appended: (1) Washington's Community and Technical Colleges; (2) Glossary of Terms; (3) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs); (4) Example of Sales versus Income; (5) Emsi MR-SAM; (6) Value per Credit Hour Equivalent and the Mincer Function; (7) Alternative Education Variable; (8) Overview of Investment Analysis Measures; (9) Shutdown Point and (10) Social Externalities. A list of resources and references is included.

What should be goal of education in general? What type of education are we practicing in the name of lifelong learning? What perspective of lifelong learning is becoming more dominant? Should the education system of a nation fulfill the demand of the market or the demand of the society? In this short single participant interview research I have explored the issues associated with these questions. Four themes generated out of interview--economy and lifelong learning, knowledge discrimination, lifelong learning in Canada, and Education-Job mismatch--have been discussed in particular. The report concludes that: objective of lifelong learning shouldn't be limited to economic gain; knowledge shouldn't be discriminated on the basis of the value given by the market; lifelong learning policy must allow spaces for indigenous, traditional and other forms of informal knowledge that are often left unrecognized and neglected; and as both market and education are the parts of nation both of them should work towards the fulfillment of the demand of the nation. The interview transcript is appended.

Overskilling is the phenomenon whereby a worker's skills are underutilised in his or her job. Overskilled workers are employed, but they are underutilised and mismatched, in that their skills and abilities are not a good match with the requirements of the job. Overskilling can lead to decreased wages and job satisfaction, which suggests that the investment in skills for that individual has been somewhat wasted. Overskilling mismatch has been shown to be persistent; that is, present overskilling mismatch increases the probability of future overskilling mismatch. However, the previous research showing this extends back only one year. This report examines the persistence of mismatch over a longer (up to three years) time period and its effect on wages. An obvious explanation for the persistence of overskilling is that it reflects personal unobserved characteristics (such as the person having an inflated view of their own skills). This paper exploits longitudinal data to show that persistence is more than this, with the probability of being overskilled increasing if the individual has been overskilled in the previous period, after allowing for unobserved characteristics. Key findings include: (1) Overskilling is persistent: overskilling mismatch is common among those who have been overskilled in the past. Persistence varies by educational level, with its being lowest among university graduates and highest among VET diploma graduates and those who did not finish high school; and (2) The wages of university graduates are reduced by past overskilling, more so than for any other education level. A possible reason for the second finding is that graduates tend to be in better-paid jobs and therefore there is more at stake for them. This observation is supported by the results of quantile regressions, which differentiate the impact of overskilling by whether an individual is at the top or the bottom of the earnings distribution. With the exception of certificate III and IV graduates, workers who are better paid among their peers are more likely to suffer higher wage penalties from being overskilled. Appended are: (1) Definition of variables; and (2) Estimation of individuals' probability of being overskilled in their current job and the effect of state dependence. (Contains 15 tables, 6 figures, 1 box and 10 footnotes.)

Using national data, the present study first investigated interstate college migration. Unlike existing studies of interstate college migration, this study also tracked students to college graduation to explore their post-graduation migration, such as leaving to other states after graduating from in-state institutions and returning to home states after graduating from out-of-state institutions. While a single equation approach has been widely used in migration research, this study used multi-level logistic regression that is rather new in the area of institutional research. In addition to states' economic conditions, certain institutional characteristics were found to influence differently depending of types of migration. States by Region are appended. (Contains 5 tables.)

Recognizing that higher education, including community colleges, four-year colleges, and research universities, cannot help drive economic growth in their states unless students' academic success is linked to the needs of the marketplace, governors and state policymakers are beginning to move beyond their focus on getting more students to get "degrees" to asking: "Degrees for what jobs?" Governors and state policymakers in Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington have undertaken bold, comprehensive strategies to align postsecondary education with the state's economic goals. In the context of their overall strategies, discussed in this report, these pioneering states have taken the following steps to strengthen universities and colleges as agents of workforce preparation and sources of more opportunity, more growth, and more competitive advantage: (1) Set clear expectations for higher education's role in economic development; (2) Emphasize rigorous use of labor market data and other sources to define goals and priorities; (3) Encourage employers' input in higher education; (4) Require public higher education institutions to collect and publicly report impacts; and (5) Emphasize performance as an essential factor in funding. (Contains 8 tables, 5 figures, and 61 endnotes.)

Complete College America and FutureWorks conducted an analysis of certificate production, the value of the certificate program, and the economic benefit it provides to the region and nation. The conclusion, based on labor market demand and both personal and economic returns, is that certificates count and the policy and trends around certificates deserve closer examination. This report is a follow-up that focuses on certificate production across the states and serves to answer some of the important questions raised in the first iteration: (1) What trends can we observe in certificate production?; (2) Are there different state factors driving results?; and (3) What are the policy implications of a state's certificate production? To answer these questions, this analysis presents an overview of certificate production in the United States, the types of certificates driving production, and a comparison to overall completion production in the states. The overall goal of this report is to create a context for state policy discussion and stimulate challenging questions about completion data and certificate production. Appended are: (1) 2008 FTE, Certificates, and Associates Degrees and 10 Year Growth, 1998-2008 (Public Associates Institutions); and (2) Carnegie 2005 Classification and Groupings. (Contains 1 figure, 9 tables, and 6 footnotes.)

It will take years for the labor market to recover from the damage induced by the recent recession. While monthly job losses almost surely peaked in 2009, the unemployment rate will likely peak in 2010 (CBO 2010a). In April, the unemployment rate reached 9.9% and the overall economic cause is simple: firms are not hiring quickly enough, as indicated by the 5.6 job seekers per current job opening. The 290,000 jobs gained in April, the largest monthly job gain in three years, represent a baby step in climbing out of the jobs hole of 10.7 million that remains in the recession's wake. For the class of 2010, it will be one of the worst years to graduate high school or college since at least 1983 and possibly the worst since the end of World War II. This paper documents several aspects of the grim labor market situation facing young graduates. It also discusses ways that government policy both helps and ways that it fails to help young workers damaged by the recession. The class of 2010 is graduating at a particularly bad time, and their poor job prospects are manifestly not their fault. They need a response from policy makers that appreciates these facts. (Contains 9 figures, 1 table, and 6 endnotes.)

Providing remedial (also known as developmental) education is the primary way colleges cope with students who do not have the academic preparation needed to succeed in college-level courses. Remediation is widespread, with nearly one-third of entering freshman taking remedial courses at a cost of at least $1 billion per year. Despite its prevalence, there is uncertainty surrounding its short- and longer-run effects. This paper presents new evidence on this question using longitudinal administrative data from Texas and a regression discontinuity research design. We find little indication that remediation improves academic or labor market outcomes. Additional data are appended. (Contains 32 footnotes, 11 tables, and 5 figures.) [This article has been published as: Martorell, Paco and Isaac McFarlin Jr. 2011. "Help or Hindrance? The Effects of College Remediation on Academic and Labor Market Outcomes," The Review of Economics & Statistics, 93(2): 436-454.]

This article highlights research in "The STEM Dilemma: Skills That Matter to Regions", which was recently published by the Upjohn Institute. The book looks at the regional workforce through the lens of the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) associated with regional occupations. This fine-grained approach uses data in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database to identify differences in regional human capital concentrations. The O*NET database scores the importance and the required level of 120 individual KSA attributes for each occupation. Matching the occupational KSA attributes to wage and employment data available from the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) enables examination of the actual human capital differences present in regional economies and answers some important questions: (1) To what extent do STEM occupations drive modern regional economies; (2) Do STEM occupations provide better wages for regional employees; (3) What other KSAs represent valuable regional human capital; and (4) Is there a relationship between the KSAs in demand by regional occupations and the welfare of the region itself? Guided by the sharp policy focus on STEM study, this research set out to explore the effect of STEM skill concentrations on regional well-being. This research clarifies how human capital development functions in the larger economy and how differences in human capital deployment impact regional well-being. These insights should help policymakers shape more targeted and effective place-based policies.

This paper is about a court case decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1971. Although attorneys recognize that the case is important to businesses, its impact on colleges and universities has been explored by only a few. As this paper will show, "Griggs v. Duke Power" may have enormously boosted the number of students in college and may have increased the differential in income between high school and college graduates. It may have led to higher tuition, without providing commensurate additional value. This paper will describe "Griggs," the environment from which it emerged, and the subsequent judicial and political activity that created such great constraints on testing. It will discuss testing today and then provide economic information suggesting the magnitude of the changes that "Griggs" may have instigated. This paper suggests that additional scholarly work on the impact of "Griggs" on higher education is appropriate. (Contains 2 figures and 52 endnotes.) [This paper was supported by the Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE).]

The California Postsecondary Education Commission recently adopted three reports dealing with postsecondary education and the economy, as part of its Higher Education Performance and Accountability Framework. The reports examined three specific measures: (1) Educational attainment of the population; (2) Links between degree attainment and earnings; and (3) Match between degrees awarded and labor market demand. These papers were discussed by the Commission, its staff, and the Commission's Statutory Advisory Committee representing all the postsecondary education segments. The purpose of this paper is to suggest policy options worthy of further exploration based on previous papers and ensuing discussions. This item reviews what the Commission has learned about the alignment between degree production and California's demand for an educated workforce. It offers a series of options for state colleges and universities to increase enrollment and degree production. It also offers an option for policymakers to consider encouraging increased degree production in specific fields of high state priority but for which there are shortages of qualified workers.

The vitality of New York State's economy depends on deepening the ranks of the skilled workforce, a need that will grow more urgent over the next several years as the Baby Boomer generation moves into retirement. If employers cannot fill high-skilled positions they will lose competitive ground, and some may leave. New York has successfully expanded college enrollment among recent high school graduates over the past decade. Yet enrollment among adults has not only lagged--it has sharply dropped, leaving New York with one of the nation's lowest rates of adult college enrollment. Turning around the decline in adult college participation is essential and achievable. While a successful plan will include several integrated components, this study focuses on what the author believes to be the most essential component: improving affordability so that more working adults can gain access to college and avoid dropping out. Currently, New York's financial aid system is failing adult students. To rectify this problem, the author recommends that New York reform its Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and seek other vehicles for improving adult access to higher education. (Contains 3 tables, 4 charts, and 45 endnotes.) [This report was produced in part by the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy.]

Despite many accomplishments and a widely-praised system, there remain significant challenges to address in higher education in Virginia: (1) Although the state performs well in six-year graduation rates for bachelor degree programs, graduation rates at specific four-year institutions range from the very high end of the spectrum to the very low; (2) Growing burdens placed on students from the lowest income levels due to rising tuition charges is a public policy matter of great concern; (3) Statewide remediation rates of 18-21% for college freshmen indicate that improvement is needed in the P-12 system; (4) Rising enrollment demands risk loss of students to the public college system, with accompanying loss of access to higher education opportunity; (5) Lack of progress in advancing Virginia's national standing in research; and (6) Continued skill shortages, especially in nursing, teaching, engineering and technology. The intent of this plan is to establish clarity about state priorities, to inform a coordinated system of higher education within which distinctive institutions may operate with a high degree of autonomy, and to serve state and national needs at a high level of quality by focusing on access, alignment and investment. Twelve goals and accompanying strategies are articulated: (1) Enhance Access Through P-16 Curricular Alignment; (2) Enhance Access Through Improved Coordination of Information; (3) Enhance Affordability Through Financial Aid Advocacy; (4) Enhance Affordability Through Education and Investment Incentives; (5) Improve College Readiness Through Strengthened P-16 Cooperation and Communication; (6) Strengthen P-16 Coordination Through Expanded Data Collection and Analysis; (7) Support State Workforce Needs Through Strengthened Participation in Post-Secondary Education; (8) Conduct a Comprehensive Economic Impact Study of Higher Education; (9) Improve Alignment Between Higher Education and the Commonwealth's Workforce Needs; (10) Strengthen Academic Program Quality and Accountability Through Assessment; (11) Enhance Research Through Investment in Targeted Consortia; and (12) Enhance Research Through Investment in Infrastructure.

Like previous reports, the seventh annual "Performance Report for Ohio's Colleges and Universities" uses a variety of data and data sources to describe higher education in Ohio, from student academic preparation to learning environments, student progress, degree achievement, and licensure/employment outcomes. The report also provides information about research and job-training activities, and basic financial information about costs, state support and financial aid provided to students. The report is published in two documents: a summary of state-wide and sector-level information and a supporting document containing outcomes measures for individual higher education institutions. Significant findings indicate that: (1) Ohio has made progress in increasing higher educational attainment and research activity, but continues to lag behind other states and the national average; (2) Enrollment in higher education is increasing and the student body reflects the diversity of the Ohio population; (3) Thirty-seven percent of first-time freshmen in public institutions require remedial courses in their first year of college; (4) A high proportion of students attend more than one institution during their academic career and transfer students graduate at lower rates than non-transfer students, indicating that the transfer process is not seamless; (5) Although a majority of students who begin college are successful, there is room for improvement in the areas of retention, degree completion and time-to-degree; (6) Ohio has been graduating more students over the past five years and growth in graduate earnings is high, but in-state retention has decreased slightly over prior years; (7) Ohio's public higher education institutions operate efficiently compared to the rest of the United States; and (8) Tuition fees tend to be high in Ohio, but can be offset by financial aid to those who qualify. (Contains 15 figures and 32 tables.)

Ontario's 24 colleges drive economic growth and social prosperity in the province. Rapidly evolving technologies continue to change the nature of work in every industry sector and the requirements placed on workers at every level. As a result, Ontario must increasingly rely on a workforce with the skills and education to translate change into economic opportunity. By investing to improve access, quality and accountability at Ontario's colleges, the Ontario government underscored the critical role of colleges in creating wealth and prosperity for Ontarians. Two years of funding under the Reaching Higher Plan have better positioned Ontario's colleges to fulfill that role. This paper presents findings from the 2006 survey of Ontario colleges.

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Montana include: (1) Montana has made progress in preparing students to succeed in college, and receives a B+ in preparation this year; (2) Montana has lost ground in its efforts to enroll students in higher education. This year Montana receives a C- in participation; (3) Montana has shown no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Montana receives an F in affordability; (4) Despite substantial improvement in the proportion of students receiving certificates or degrees in a timely manner, Montana receives a B- in completion this year; (5) Despite improvement, Montana continues to lag many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. Montana receives a C+ in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Montana receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Hawaii include: (1) Despite improvement, Hawaii lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Hawaii receives a C- in preparation; (2) Hawaii has made progress in enrolling students in higher education. This year Hawaii receives a C in participation; (3) Hawaii has lost ground in making higher education affordable, and receives a D in affordability this year; (4) Despite improvement in the proportion of students receiving certificates or degrees in a timely manner, Hawaii receives a B- in completion this year; (5) Hawaii has seen an increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year, Hawaii earns an A- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Hawaii receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Iowa include: (1) Iowa has made progress in preparing students to succeed in college, and receives a B+ in preparation this year; (2) Iowa continues to perform well in enrolling students in higher education. This year Iowa receives an A- in participation; (3) Iowa has lost considerable ground in making higher education affordable. Iowa receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Iowa continues its consistently strong performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Iowa receives an A in completion; (5) Iowa has made no notable progress in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Iowa earns a C in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Iowa receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Mississippi include: (1) Despite improvement, Mississippi continues to struggle in preparing students to succeed in college. Mississippi receives a D- in preparation this year; (2) Mississippi has continued to struggle in enrolling students in higher education. This year Mississippi is the only state to receive a D in participation, the lowest grade awarded; (3) Mississippi has lost ground in providing affordable higher education. Mississippi receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Mississippi continues its good performance in the proportion of students earning their certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Mississippi receives a B in completion; (5) Despite substantial improvement, Mississippi continues to lag many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. Mississippi earns a C in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Mississippi receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because in sufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Indiana include: (1) Despite substantial improvement, Indiana lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Indiana receives a C in preparation; (2) Indiana has made little progress in enrolling students in higher education. Indiana receives a C+ in participation this year; (3) Indiana has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Indiana receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Indiana has maintained its high performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Indiana receives a B+ in completion; (5) Despite improvement, Indiana lags many other states in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Indiana earns a C in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Indiana receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Idaho include: (1) Despite notable improvement, Idaho lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Idaho receives a C in preparation; (2) Idaho has made no notable progress in enrolling students in higher education. This year Idaho receives a D+ in participation; (3) Idaho has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Idaho receives a D in affordability; (4) Idaho has seen no notable improvement in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Idaho receives a C+ in completion; (5) Despite improvement, Idaho continues to lag many other states in the benefits it receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Idaho earns a C- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Idaho receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Illinois include: (1) Illinois has improved in preparing high school students to succeed in college. This year Illinois receives a B in preparation; (2) Despite a decline in performance, Illinois continues to do well in enrolling students in higher education when compared with other states. This year Illinois receives an A in participation; (3) Illinois has seen a notable decline in the provision of affordable higher education. This year Illinois receives an F in affordability; (4) Illinois has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Illinois receives a B+ in completion this year; (5) Illinois has made gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Illinois earns an A in benefits; and (6) Illinois is among nine states that receive a "Plus" in Learning because data were sufficient to compare at least two of the three Learning categories in the state results described in this paper. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Delaware include: (1) Despite improvement, Delaware lags much of the nation in preparing students to succeed in college. Delaware receives a C in preparation this year; (2) Although Delaware has lost ground in enrolling students in higher education, its performance remains good when compared with other states. This year Delaware receives a B in participation; (3) Delaware has made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. Delaware receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Delaware has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Delaware receives an A- in completion; (5) Despite a substantial increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population, Delaware earns a B- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Delaware receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Maine include: (1) Maine has shown improvement in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Maine earns a B in preparation; (2) Maine has shown no notable improvement in the proportion of students enrolling in higher education. This year Maine receives a B- in participation; (3) Maine has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Maine receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Maine continues its good performance in the proportion of students earning their certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Maine receives a B in completion; (5) Maine has made no notable progress in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Maine earns a B- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Maine receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Minnesota include: (1) Minnesota has shown improvement in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Minnesota receives a B in preparation; (2) Minnesota continues to excel in enrolling students in higher education. This year Minnesota receives an A in participation; (3) Minnesota has made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. Minnesota earns a D in affordability this year; (4) Minnesota has shown substantial improvement in the proportion of students earning their certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Minnesota receives an A in completion; (5) Minnesota has made gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Minnesota earns a B+ in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Minnesota receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Colorado include: (1) Colorado has improved in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Colorado receives a B+ in preparation; (2) Colorado continues to perform well in enrolling students in higher education. This year Colorado receives an A- in participation; (3) Colorado has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Colorado receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Colorado has made substantial gains in the proportion of Colorado's students who earn a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Colorado receives a B in completion; (5) Colorado continues to realize considerable benefits from having a more highly educated population. This year Colorado earns an A- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Colorado receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Florida include: (1) Despite improvement, Florida lags much of the nation in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Florida receives a C in preparation; (2) The number of students enrolling in higher education in Florida has declined. Florida receives a C in participation this year; (3) Florida has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Florida receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Florida continues its strong performance in the proportion of students who earn a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Florida receives an A in completion this year; (5) Florida has seen an increase in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population. Florida earns a B in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Florida receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Kansas include: (1) Despite improvement in preparing students to succeed in college, Kansas receives a B- in preparation this year; (2) Kansas continues its consistently high performance in enrolling students in higher education. This year Kansas receives an A in participation; (3) Kansas has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Kansas receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Kansas has improved substantially in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner, and receives a B+ in completion this year; (5) Kansas has made notable gains in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. Kansas earns a B+ in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Kansas receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Alaska include: (1) Alaska has improved in preparing students to perform well in college, and this year receives a B- in preparation; (2) Alaska has lost ground in its efforts to enroll students in higher education. Alaska receives a C+ in participation this year; (3) Alaska made no notable progress in making higher education affordable. This year Alaska receives an F in affordability; (4) Despite substantial improvement, Alaska is one of the worst-performing states in the proportion of students earning certificates or degrees in a timely manner. This year Alaska is one of only two states to receive an F in completion; (5) Alaska is one of only two states to see a decline in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Alaska earns a B- in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Alaska receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Michigan include: (1) Despite improvement, Michigan lags many other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Michigan receives a C- in preparation; (2) Michigan continues to perform very well in enrolling students in higher education. This year Michigan receives an A- in participation; (3) Michigan has lost considerable ground in making higher education affordable. Michigan receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Michigan has shown improvement in the proportion of students earning their certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Michigan receives a B in completion; (5) Michigan has seen an increase in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population. Michigan earns an A- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Michigan receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Georgia include: (1) Despite improvement, Georgia's performance in preparing students to succeed in college remains low when compared with other states. This year Georgia receives a C+ in preparation; (2) Although Georgia has made gains in enrolling students in higher education, the state's performance remains poor when compared with other states. This year Georgia receives a D+ in participation; (3) Georgia has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Georgia receives an F in affordability; (4) Georgia has made substantial gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Georgia receives an A in completion; (5) Despite a notable increase in the benefits received from having a more highly educated population, Georgia earns a B- in benefits this year; and (6) Like most states, Georgia receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 1 figure.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Louisiana include: (1) Despite improvement, Louisiana continues to lag most other states in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Louisiana is one of only two states to receive an F in preparation; (2) Louisiana continues to struggle in enrolling students in higher education. This year Louisiana receives a C- in participation; (3) Louisiana has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. Louisiana receives an F in affordability this year; (4) Despite substantial improvement, Louisiana lags many other states in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Louisiana receives a C- in completion; (5) Louisiana continues to struggle in realizing the benefits that come from having a more highly educated population. This year Louisiana is one of only two states to receive a D+ in benefits, the lowest grade awarded; and (6) Like most states, Louisiana receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 2 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Rhode Island include: (1) Despite improvement, Rhode Island's performance in preparing students to succeed in college remains low when compared with other states. This year Rhode Island receives a C+ in preparation; (2) Rhode Island has consistently excelled in enrolling students in higher education. This year Rhode Island receives an A in participation; (3) Rhode Island has lost ground in providing affordable higher education. Rhode Island, along with many other states this year, receives an F in affordability; (4) Rhode Island has improved on its already excellent performance in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. This year Rhode Island receives an A in completion; (5) Rhode Island is one of only two states to see a decline in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. This year Rhode Island earns a B in benefits; and (6) Like most states, Rhode Island receives an "Incomplete" in Learning because insufficient data would not allow meaningful state-by-state comparisons. However, data are available this year to examine the readiness of college graduates--from two- and four-year institutions--for advanced practice. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]

The purpose of this state report card is to provide the general public and policymakers with information they can use to assess and improve postsecondary education in each state. "Measuring Up 2006" is the fourth in a series of biennial report cards. The report card grades states in six overall performance categories: (1) Preparation: How adequately does the state prepare students for education and training beyond high school?; (2) Participation: Do state residents have sufficient opportunities to enroll in education and training beyond high school?; (3) Affordability: How affordable is higher education for students and their families?; (4) Completion: Do students make progress toward and complete their certificates or degrees in a timely manner?; (5) Benefits: What benefits does the state receive from having a highly educated population?; and (6) Learning: What is known about student learning as a result of education and training beyond high school? Findings for Massachusetts include: (1) Massachusetts has improved on its already excellent performance in preparing students to succeed in college. This year Massachusetts receives an A in preparation; (2) Despite a decline in performance, Massachusetts continues to excel in enrolling students in higher education. This year Massachusetts receives an A in participation; (3) Massachusetts has made no notable progress in providing affordable higher education. This year Massachusetts is one of many states to receive an F in affordability; (4) Massachusetts has made notable gains in the proportion of students earning a certificate or degree in a timely manner. Massachusetts receives an A in completion this year; (5) Massachusetts has seen an increase in the benefits the state receives from having a more highly educated population. Massachusetts earns an A in benefits this year; and (6) Massachusetts is among nine states that receive a "Plus" in Learning because data were sufficient to compare at least two of the three Learning categories in the state results described in this paper. This report also includes international comparisons, additional information, questions and answers, and state grades. (Contains 3 figures.) [For "Measuring Up, 2006. The National Report Card on Higher Education," see ED493360.]