President Obama’s recent speech at the University of Texas at Austin stressed the need to boost college graduate rates. One aspect of the challenge is making sure that low-income students feel comfortable and are successful on campuses that are often dominated by students from wealthy backgrounds. At Washington University in St. Louis and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill innovative programs have been put in place that could serve as models for higher education across the country.
According to a recent article by Kristen Hare in the St. Louis Beacon, two students at Wash U have started a new organization, United for Undergraduate Socioeconomic Diversity, or “U/FUSED.” Chapters have since spread to St. Louis University and Duke. The founders, Fernando Cutz and Chase Sackett, were scholarship students who recently graduated and felt that the issue of socioeconomic diversity was ignored on campus. “There was awareness about ethnicity, awareness about race and gender, but people’s economic backgrounds weren’t getting much attention,” Hare writes.
Cutz and Sackett have pushed for increasing economic diversity at Wash U (where the percentage of federal Pell grant recipients is below 10 percent) but also have sought to make sure that once students arrive on campus they have a strong support system to remain and succeed in finding jobs. This is at least as important as getting students in the door, Chandra Taylor Smith, director of the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, told Hare. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the Pell Institute Advisory Board.) At Wash U, the Cornerstone program uses federal TRIO money to provides mentors, academic assistance, and cultural programs to first-generation college students, students from low-income families, and students with disabilities. Cutz is pushing to expand the program’s offerings.
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, meanwhile, an extensive support program was put in place in 2004 as part of the Carolina Covenant program. As outlined in a recent Century Foundation report written by former New York Times education editor Edward B. Fiske, the Carolina Covenant provides low-income student not only generous grant funding to enable students to graduate debt-free but also significant academic support. The brainchild of Shirley Ort, director of student aid, and former chancellor James Moeser, the Covenant provides faculty and staff mentoring of first-year students; peer mentoring by experienced Covenant Scholars; special development opportunities such as etiquette dinners and career workshops; and social events for Covenant Scholars. Faculty support has been strong: In the first year, more than 80 offered to serve as mentors, even though only 15 were needed.
Fiske finds that the preliminary outcomes of the financial-aid and support programs are quite positive. In the past, low-income students at Chapel Hill dropped out at almost four times the rate of wealthy students, but now outcomes are improving. Compared with a control group (students entering in 2003 who would have been eligible to be Covenant Scholars had the program existed), Covenant Scholars entering in 2004 were 24 percent less likely to take a term off and 17 percent less likely to become academically ineligible. Most importantly, 61.9 percent of the 2004 Covenant Scholars graduated within eight semesters, compared with 56.7 percent of the 2003 control group, a 5.2 percentage point increase. Put differently, eight-semester graduation rates increased 9.2 percent.
Raising the graduation rate nationally will require many different tools and substantial resources. But for those interested in taking on President Obama’s challenge, Wash U and UNC have some interesting lessons to offer.
9 Responses to Graduating Low-Income Students
honore - August 12, 2010 at 10:19 am
Caveat: more diplomas do not equal more intelligence
samojiaka - August 13, 2010 at 11:01 am
President Barack Obama should be applauded for encouraging low-income students to further their education and atleast remove the idea of inferiority complex that goes with lack of education.It will help the society to graduate as many low-income students as possible.It will not only help the family of the poor but also help the society in reducing unemployment because most of these students can start their own business and be in a position to employ others like him.I think that what we learned from Wash.University and UNC should serve as a model for improvement for other Colleges and universities that might follow the lead in increasing economic diversity and extensive support for the Presidents’ initiative.From the report at Fisk U. that outcomes of the financial-aid and support programs are very encouraging and that low-income students at Chapel Hill dropped out at almost four times rate of wealthy students proves President Obamas’ point.
softshellcrab - August 13, 2010 at 11:58 am
All a bunch of huey. I agree with honore. This will simply translate into handing out degrees like food samples at a grocery store. No standards, nobody fails. When will it ever be recognized that “degree” does not equal “knowledge”.
aaceub - August 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm
@honore and softshellcrab: How does providing additional academic support for low-income students equate to lowering academic standards and indiscriminately handing out “food sample” degrees? If a wealthy student received additional tutoring (which he/she can afford) to succeed in his/her academic courses, does that lessen the integrity of the class and degree eventually received?
rick1952 - August 14, 2010 at 3:33 pm
I just finished reading this week the Century Report publication “Rewarding Strivers…”Honore – we have exchanged comments on a previous article, and I trust you are thinking about this with an open mind. I urge you to read the book – while your caveat is warranted, I think you will find that the goal Kahlenberg is advocating is not simply more diplomas but instead is for more equitable access to and graduation from college by qualified, low-income students. The 21st century is here and as we are reminded so often, we are going to need as many well-educated citizens as possible to remain competitive in the global economy. The UNC Carolina Covenant is a very good example of how we might achieve this goal with integrity.Softshellcrab – we have also exchanged before – if you look in the mirror, you will see the purveyor of hooey (check your spelling too.) Try meeting the standard of informed comment (when will you learn that just because you have a right to your opinion, it does not mean you opinion is right, especially when you appear to be uninformed. Spare us your cynical and useless opinions.
softshellcrab - August 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm
@ rick1952Not sure if you’ll see this, I am at the office again on Saturday working, during August, not so common for an academic. This topic is probably burned out and not viewed much anymore. Thanks for the correct spelling of “hooey”, assuming you are right, and I freely admit I was unsure how to spell it. Do I really “have” to start to use spellcheck or go over my postings to remove every single misspelling, lest I incur your wrath? Dang! Based on what I see in others’ postings (and unlike you, would never be so petty as to use to criticize) I am not alone in this! On the main point, you are wrong. For all its grand and glorious words, every program to get more “graduates”, however they say they will do it, will inevitably turn into dropping standards and passing through people who have not learned very well. Heck, it’s going on big time now. Wake up and smell the petunias. Sorry for yet another “cynical and useless opinion” (again, dang! I’m such a loser, aren’t I?) But that is the way it is. Some people, a number really, are just not really college material, if we really teach college as it is supposed to be taught. I am sorry if that bothers you. Simly handing out more degrees is NOT the same as having more educated adults. Again, I am sorry if reality intrudes its ugly head. Best wishes, anyway.
rick1952 - August 15, 2010 at 10:03 pm
@Softshellcrab – many of us work nights and weekends in academia, at least at the institutions in which I have worked over the years. Not that that is always such a good thing.You and I are of very different minds when it comes to the question of educational opportunity. I certainly am aware of the presence of unmotivated students in college. I have no brief for such students once they have demonstrated their lack of motivation. But I would not “throw out the baby with the bath water” as you seem willing to do in this situation.I am also keenly aware of the absence from campus of highly motivated individuals for whom college is out of reach for reasons that include cost as well as adequate precollege preparation. Both of those are correctable problems.For my part, I will side with and support those who wish to expand opportunity – that is more consistent with the American Dream and Promise (and, as I mentioned, will help our nation retain its competitive standing in the global economy. So, I am not entirely altruistic in my thinking.) I do not accept a priori your contention that there are “some people” who are simply not ready for college; absent evidence in the form of lack of performance that is a prejudiced attitude.Again, take a look at the Carolina Covenant and similar programs – they are not about lowering standards, they are about providing opportunity for motivated and capable students. That is what Kahlenberg is advocating, that is what I support, and I regret that you fail to see the value of such efforts.You can see things your way. But I will continue to look for evidence and information that points to how we can do better in making college more accessible to more students who are motivated to learn. On that point I am not wrong, and it does not matter if I hold the minority opinion. On more than one occasion in the past, those with the minority opinion proved correct and those of the majority opinion had to “wake up and smell the petunias.” Sorry if that reality bothers you.
honore - August 17, 2010 at 1:00 am
rick1952, my skepticism comes from my lengthy and varied exposure (and professional participation) with programs touted as increasing access, which on the surface sound and seem like a great idea.However, my optimism was consistently dashed when these programs of access in actuality were programs that:1. discriminated against some students in favor of others who possessed the more politically-correct victimhood credentials2. amounted to nothing more than backdoor admissions employing standards so low that the proverbial “bar” was now buried underground3. gave discriminatory “preference” in funding, academic assistance and support programming while EXCLUDING others (Asians) because they were “already doing just fine”.4. often gave a very false sense of “success” to students not likely to function academically with meaningless titles like “scholar”, “exceptional” or “gifted” BEFORE they actually earn such distinctions.5. failed to look at the REAL impact of these programs on the lives of students who failed and were brushed aside as statistically insignificant bureaucratic ripples6. expected anyone of a “minority” status to sign off on any of the above without questionThese are just a few of the experiential realities that qualified my initial observation above. And I still see these programs being supported by those who just want to look good at the next “diversity” photo-op with no REAL commitment or understanding of the effect these programs can have (positive and negative) on the lives of so many.This is after all only “my” opinion, but it is very well-qualified if not popular. As YOU know, my personal background is not exactly too divergent from the VERY students “targeted” by these programs today and despite their absence in my life and that of many of my chronological peers, I succeeded (as did you).Please understand that I am NOT against any program that provides ALL students with whatever they need to succeed, but these “programs” need to address ALL students, without exceptions based on ethnicity, race or age.Nothing is sadder than a kid from a grossly impoverished Appalachian coal town who is the first person in his family to go beyond the 6th grade, being told by an Ivy League financial aid officer that he doesn’t qualify for a grant or scholarship because of his “white privilege”, while the prep-school educated sons and daughters of “minority” faculty/administrators get very abundant scholarship packages without even applying for them.Be well, for now…Madison, WI
marka - August 17, 2010 at 5:08 pm
As another old fogey (sp?), I am more skeptical than not of various reform programs. I, too, in my experience, have seen good-sounding programs become not much more than window dressing.If the metric is ‘graduation,’ then graduation is what will be the focus. And graduation is more easily achieved by reducing standards than doing the hard work of bringing someone already far behind up to speed.Frankly, by the time of college, the challenge is much greater, the opportunity much less. Plenty of research suggests starting much earlier provides much better results. By the time of junior hi/hi school, the die for most has been cast. Sigh …This is the fundamental flaw in most affirmative action programs – they seek to improve things long after the cow/horse is out the barn-door, and it is much easier to look good on the metrics (whatever it may be – admission rates, retention rates, grades) by fudging the metrics. Sad to say, in practice, that is what happens, more often than not. Simply an observation of human behavior in real-world conditions. Not that some don’t do the right thing, but it requires harder work – harder enough that most others aren’t willling to make the change and effort.Now, if you could get more meaningful objective metrics, by say standarized tests, then you might get somewhere: in other words, you have to set up a system that can’t be ‘gamed’ as easily, or that can and will be systematically audited with direct and certain consequences (pocketbook works well in many situations, although publicity, both good & bad, also can work).