On Thursday, at a National Press Club luncheon in Washington D.C., the Century Foundation released a new book that I edited entitled Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College. The discussion, which featured chapter authors Anthony Carnevale of Georgetown University and former New York Times education editor Edward B. Fiske—along with William Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions at Harvard College—raised a number of key issues in the fight for expanding access to low-income students. Related controversies were raised by media reports about the book in places like USA Today, Inside Higher Education, and National Review.
Rewarding Strivers is a follow on to the Century Foundation’s 2004 volume, America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education, which included a chapter by Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose finding that at selective institutions, 74% of students come for the richest socioeconomic quarter of the population, and just 3% from the bottom quartile. Rewarding Strivers includes a chapter by Fiske on the University of North Carolina’s innovative financial aid and support program and a chapter by Carnevale and coauthor Jeff Strohl on efforts colleges could use to admit disadvantaged students who beat the odds. Among the questions raised in yesterday’s discussion and media reports about the volume were the following:
1. Is giving a leg up in admissions to economically disadvantaged students too controversial? In Mary Beth Marklein’s article about the book in USA Today, the admissions director at UNC-Chapel Hill, Steven Farmer, suggested that economic preferences are likely to be just as controversial as racial preferences. “Somebody who believes his or her child is entitled to a space (in a school’s freshman class) doesn’t care whether that child’s space is taken by a student of color or by a student from the other side of the tracks.” But in fact, polling has long found that while American’s oppose considering race in admissions by 2:1, they favor providing a preference for low-income applicants by a 2:1 margin. On the panel, Fitzsimmons, who identified himself as a striver, described Harvard’s efforts as combining an emphasis on financial aid with special consideration of socioeconomic obstacles in admissions.
2. Is the fight over affirmative action based on class or race misplaced, given that students can get an excellent education anywhere? In National Review, George Leef argued: “Elite colleges don’t necessarily provide elite education. For the vast majority of students, the course work at middling schools is indistinguishable from that at prestige schools.” In fact, Carnevale and Strohl find that where you go to school matters on a number of fronts. Colleges with low selectivity spend about $12,000 per student compared with $92,000 per student at the most selective institutions. Moreover, in the wealthiest 10 percent of institutions, students pay just 20 cents for every dollar spent on them, compared with the poorest 10 percent of institutions, where students pay 78 cents of every dollar spent on them. Selective institutions are much more likely to graduate equally qualified students than less selective colleges and universities. Earnings are 45% higher for students who graduated from more selective institutions, particularly low-income students. And according to research by Thomas Dye, 54 percent of America’s corporate leaders and 42 percent of government leaders are graduates of just 12 institutions.
3. Is it preferable to help move low-income students into better schools or to improve colleges that disadvantaged students already attend? The Inside Higher Education report contrasted these two strategies: affirmative action to help move economically disadvantaged students into wealthier and more selective colleges; and efforts to move “money and quality programs to the community colleges” which most low-income students attend. At the K-12 level, more money in economically and racially segregated schools has helped some, but ultimately efforts to make separate but equal work have proven unsatisfactory. What reason is there to think the approach will work any better in higher education?
3 Responses to ‘Rewarding Strivers’
megginson - June 21, 2010 at 7:32 am
I agree with the goal of paving the way for more students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to go to college, but on principle have to argue with some of the conclusions in point 2, since I believe there are logical fallacies in the argument. Given the brand name recognition that comes from a Harvard or Yale degree and the tendency of people at the top of the ladder to clone themselves, it is not all that surprising that highly paid leaders in the corporate and government worlds tend to come from a small collection of institutions, but that doesn’t invalidate Leef’s point. The money spent per student is a stronger argument, *if* it is going into direct support of classroom education (and if the argument isn’t being made that a higher paid faculty member is likely to be a better classroom teacher; there is much counterevidence). Also, to see what students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face financially in going to prestige schools, do the math: It’s interesting to compare a student outlay of 20% on a $92,000 investment versus 78% on a $12,000 investment to see an affordability problem that still is there.It can certainly be argued that you will do better with a degree from one of those 12 institutions because many folks believe you will do better with such a degree; sure. And Leef may be overstating his case. However, the true educational value, as opposed to perceived value, added by a degree from the “top 12″ over those from “middling schools” is still worth exploring.
88854333 - June 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I earned degrees at a very poor community college, a large R1 state university, and Harvard. I have taught students at all three schools, and I can attest that instruction is far better at Harvard. Teaching at Harvard is exemplary–and even undergrads know how to explain things exceedingly well because it is expected that you will strive to communicate well. I’m a minority member and a woman in science and was a non-traditional student. I was a poor, single mother. My Harvard degree didn’t elevate me to a dream job, but it has raised me out of poverty and shown what “strivers” of any color can do if allowed opportunity. Would that Americans of all colors might understand how humans help each other each day–without a helping hand outstretched to each of us, we all will flounder. Few things are built by individuals acting alone. Minorities in America were too long denied an outstretched hand to lift them up, to help them build their own lives. Harvard is among those that help, and it really means something.
marka - June 21, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I came from a working class family, neighborhood, and inner-city school system. No TV, 1 car, hand-me-downs for birthday presents, and scholarships to get into & thru college, and we were some of the lucky ones better off than many. I agree that poor folks (and not so poor, but still can’t afford schooling) ought to get more assistance to make equal opportunity a reality, not just a slogan. On the other hand, that assistance ought to come at the beginning — toddler on up: assistance at the other end — college — is a dollar short & a day late for most. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it @ the college level: but does mean that we shouldn’t rely upon it to create equal opportunity for all. Such entering students should meet all other academic requirements, not become water-down tokens who need drastic remedial education. Unfair to them, to us, and to the next generation, upon whom we could & should spend most of that $$.