May 12, 2008
Explaining the Lack of Economic Diversity on Campus
Over the past few years, a number of elite colleges and universities have launched campaigns aimed at providing more financial aid to financially-strapped students. But as Karin Fischer recently reported, "the proportion of financially needy undergraduates at the nation's wealthiest colleges and universities actually dropped between the 2004-5 and 2006-7 academic years."
Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and longtime advocate of class-based affirmative action, offers an analysis of what factors might explain the apparent anomaly.
The primary reason, according to Kahlenberg, is that aid policies are only part of what drives enrollment. "In order to receive aid, low-income and working class students must first be admitted. Because such students often attend lousy schools, even highly talented and hard working students -- who have tremendous potential -- don't look as good on paper as their more privileged colleagues. Research finds that while colleges and universities give substantial preferences to under-represented minorities (blacks, Latinos and Native Americans) and other groups, they give basically no preference to economically disadvantaged students, despite claims to the contrary."
Evan Goldstein | Posted on Monday May 12, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Mankiw Moves Harvard
Next: Batting Order for Conference Presentations
“Because such students often attend lousy schools, even highly talented and hard working students — who have tremendous potential — don’t look as good on paper as their more privileged colleagues.”
This is incredibly true. I was one of those students. I came from a rural high school to an elite college and had a terrible time adjusting. Professors had no idea how to deal with smart students who had not been prepared for college. Many thought I was dumb, and refused to show me how I could learn the background material that they expected me to just magically know. Other kids, those who had attended expensive private schools and had already learned most of our first year material, were praised and set the curve for the class. Only when we reached upper level classes with new and more complex material did these people finally flare out, and I began to excel. However, it took 1-2 years for their advantage (from better high schools) to disappear and for my talent and intelligence to final get me somewhere.
I worked really, really hard to graduate with a decent (but not great) GPA. My first year grades killed any chance at honors, despite my spending more time that year on studies than anyone I have ever known, at any level of school (including my current friends who are doctors and Ph.D. grads). It was really tough and I don’t think many people could have done it. Most would have given up after such a discouraging first year—with no support from professors, a terrible GPA and nothing to show for all the hard work.
I went on to law school and graduated top of my class at a top tier university. (My awesome LSAT made up for my so-so GPA to get me into a good school). In law school, I never had to study as hard as I did to catch up in my first years at my undergrad. I was able to get top grades with just the normal hours of studying a day.
My story is unique. I doubt that schools are going to fix the problems that plagued my first years at my undergrad school. Until schools set up programs to help disadvantaged students catch up and compete (and maybe see some type of reward for all of their hard work to make up for the inevitable Cs and Ds that they will get in their first semester), then the ivory tower will continue to be a playground for the rich.
It will also take Professors themselves—many that came from privileged backgrounds—to recognize that many of their opportunities came from wealth and privilege. While they may be smart, there are a ton of smart kids out there who don’t get to go to the best schools, who aren’t challenged to learn or taught to write a college-level paper, and who need extra help to make up for their impoverished backgrounds.
— Anonymous May 12, 01:58 PM #
I don’t know when #1 attended college but the story has a familiar ring to it as it echoes my experience when I entered an elite college in September 1971. Fortunately, the elite college I attended was a small liberal arts college and so there were professors who made the effort to assist me in making the adjustment. I, too, was ultimately successful but I saw numerous classmates of similar SES not make it while those of higher SES who seemed to not take their studies seriously experienced substantial success. I guess JFK was right: life is not fair.
Economic diversity certainly presents greater challenges when economic status correlates so closely with academic achievement both pre-college and at college. That is why after more than 30 years of laboring in higher education, I have come to the conclusion that my time and energy must be directed to fixing the educational pipeline.
— Rick May 12, 05:23 PM #
The days of giving substantial preferences to blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are now almost non-existent due to the attacks on affirmative action. Also, many of the minority students who are successful in getting into the elite colleges are also socio-economically disadvantaged.
— Cynthia May 12, 05:40 PM #
My experiences in an elite liberal arts college agree with #1 and #2. In spite of all the sincere efforts to expand to diverse clienteles, socio-economic status is the elephant in the room in Higher Ed.
Adjusting for it threatens the integrity of the grading process of course and that’s why it has been so intractable.
High grants and scholarships are the best way to ameliorate the disadvantages in a student’s situation. Raising awareness of the problem in faculty meetings is also a help.
— John May 13, 07:40 AM #
Socioeconomic diversity really needs a divorce from the schizophrenia of politically correct identity politics.
If viewed sensibly, the former can be both virtuous and functional. If defined in terms of “identities” that must be preserved and exalted (which is what happened to ethnic diversity) then it will lead to absurd notions of people going to college to represent their socioeconomic status rather than to get an education.
If the students involved succeed (i.e., move up in socioeconomic status), then colleges will be contributing to the biggest sin possible under political correctness__ reducing diversity.
The obvious problems associated with making policy on the basis of an undefined spelling and pronunciation rather than what it should refer to are evident in all this. People can worship the word “diversity” until the cows come home, but until we have some coherent meaning for the term, we’ll just engineer more and more of these kinds of problems.
After 18 years of “Diversity Committee” meetings and “conversations”, my institution has officially determined that defining it is no longer among our priorities. We will promote, enhance, foster, and celebrate “diversity”, but we will not be defining it. I couldn’t have gotten away with that in my high school writing courses during the 1960s, but that’s just fine in higher education in the 21st Century.
Go figure.
— KDR May 13, 10:31 AM #
Five top fears of PLU’s:
1. Marrying beneath your wealth class.
2. Marrying a non-white.
3. Marrying a Jew.
Elite colleges are socially engineered to minimize these fears. When they forget that mission, the elite pick up and go elsewhere.
I used to be among the crowd you’re in with…
———-Bob Dylan
— original marci May 13, 04:26 PM #
original marci – What//who is a PLU?
John – I understand the irony of your post. How can we address what we can not define? Yet if we focus on defining diversity we risk “spinning our wheels ad infinitum” and changing nothing.
— Rick May 16, 06:22 PM #