(Cincinnati) I was in Dayton today for a meeting about “non-college youth” and their civic and political participation.  CIRCLE defines this population as all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 who have never attended college (including community college). They represent about 43% of their age cohort. Studying how they engage–or don’t engage–in all forms of civic and political life is our major focus. We care because they should have a voice in government and civil society and because engaging as citizens gives them skills, networks, and motivations that help them to flourish in life. I doubt very much that the college attendance rate will rise substantially; therefore, offering young people opportunities outside of college is an important and neglected policy issue.

Yet treating “non-college youth” as a category is problematic for several reasons. First, it’s a negative definition, using a deficit as its basic criterion.

Second, it’s a very large category, encompassing enormous diversity. Just for example, 52% of this group is white, 16% is African American, 27% is Latino, and 3% is Asian or Pacific Islanders. Some are “inner-city” youth, but many live in suburbs, and nearly 20% are rural. (See our fact sheet for details.) The question, given this diversity, is whether any research program or policy should be directed at “non-college youth” as a category. Note also that non-college youth may closely resemble peers who happen to be in college or have some college experience.

Third, “non-college” does not define disadvantage. You can be wealthy and powerful without going to college: Paris Hilton is a non-c0llege youth. On the other hand, you can be deeply disadvantaged and yet in college–especially given our broad definition of the term. The most marginalized and oppressed people have other problems (such as disease, incarceration, or criminal victimization) that make college attendance seem almost beside the point. More than half of “non-college youth” are white, yet young white people are not afflicted nearly as much by poverty, violence, preventable disease, and discrimination as are young people of color.

Yet I continue to see reasons to focus on the non-college 43%. They are almost invisible in a society whose formal leaders and opinion-makers usually hold college degrees. Reporters still routinely equate college students with young people. College attendance itself is a powerful predictor of many important outcomes. For instance, people with any college experience vote at more than twice the rate of their non-college peers. Just because you are not in college, you may need different opportunities and supports. Finally, there can be strength in numbers, and talking about 43% of the population may carry extra weight.