next »

[Jeff Senese]

I read Selingo and Brainard's article this morning and Sinclair's "The Jungle" came to mind.  The focus in the slaughter house days of South Chicago in the early industrial revolution in the United States were very harsh on those who could least afford it.  Few of the weathiest organizations of the time knew or if they knew focused on these "tired and poor" immigrants who came to this country and in a large measure collectively built it.  There were a few philanthropists feeding Jane Adam's Hull House but it was not really a national imperative to pull these new Americans up by their bootstraps.

Fast forward to the present day and in the context of higher education we see a similar pattern.  The weathiest institutions pay, at best, lip service to this issue and will continue to do so unless and until they see a real incentive or need to increase the economic diversity of their student populations.  They can, with their vast resources, largely shape their in-coming classes however they choose so what's the incentive for them to change?

A college degree is not an option for many in this country and in the coming decades I believe it will be essential.

While the weathiest and most selective colleges CAN plan a role in providing access to more "poor" students, is that really where they can make significant impacts?  Is it not the role of public institutions, largely not the weathiest institutions, to provide access to those with the greatest needs?  It seems to me that all institutions should play a role in providing motivated and capable students access to higher education but also that public instiutitions are best suited to having the biggest impacts given their size and mission.

I also believe that President Bowen expressed a very laudable, and somewhat quaint, sentiment when he is quoted as challenging his weathiest colleague institutions to not just up the ante for everyone but to serve low income students as well.  I would argue that students with low incomes should not be holding their breadth for the weathiest institutions to heed Bowen and "show them the money" as their is little incentive for them to do so and when they do engage in such programs, it is more often than not little more window dressing.

What would really make a difference might be for the weathiest institutions to stop running multi-billion dollar campaigns or heaven forbid, work with public institutions and others who could actually have an impact on access to help them to grow their endowments.  Imagine the impacts that $200 million in new endowment might have on solid institutions like West Chester University or Bloomsburg University here in Pennsylvania!  Again, there is no incentive for them to do so and my suggestion, I am certain, will give these weathiest institutions something to laugh about at the Perrier cooler.

Financial aid is important to students and their families regardless of so-called wealth level.  Families with incomes of $95,000 in the United States do not really have the ability to fun their student's education given the rapid increases in costs unless they were diligent in their planning for their children over many years.  While they certainly have more ability than a family with less than $40,000, they also live different lifesyles and the money is equally tight for both groups.  Students from families with more resources depend on financial aid as much today as do students with less ability to pay.  This is a very complex situation that few, if any, institutions can afford to set aside in any great measure to provide for more access.

While I agree that all institutions need to work to increase access, I fail to see where only weathy institutions play a significant role.  Public institutions can serve particularly effectively in an expanded role in this regard but it must be a public policy that is supported and funded.

[Dr. Russ Williams\Unaffiliated]

One of the problems we face in regard to this divide, and only one -- but it is largely hidden from view -- is that both many of the college professional staff and faculty and an especially broad swath of the public is comprised of people, just folks, who -- upon the efforts of the parents and during the blindingly rapid period of revolutionary change and disjointedness in this country since 1945 --  have themselves managed to climb out of what would have bound them firmly in a condition most today would consider wretched.  

The demands being made upon them, and ony sometimes by them, for greater and greater largesse to provide an extraordinary foothold for those whose conditions today are better than were their own some fifty years past may fall on willing hearts but "empty pockets," not because they "have not" but because they live largely paycheck to paycheck and at the discretion of others for whom they strive as producing members of society subject to dismissal at will and families to support...and promote.

Faculty do not want to hear this, for they have put "kindness" above logic.  Professional staff feel a responsibility to deny it in order to build a foundation under their increasingly rapid expansion of efforts to satisfy the demands of those now called "have nots," who -- truth be told -- are the same people in different bodies, a different time, than those whom they have succeeded.

When recognition of this is left out of the equation, as it most often is, progress will be difficult at best and, worse, will proceed only joltingly if at all.  It is not because the pie has only a limited number of pieces but because the many pies are being overturned upon table and wiped onto the dirt floor.

[anon]

I have actually read a serious proposal to tax the endowments of rich schools and give the money to ones.  If playing Robin Hood is fair at the individual level, surely it is fair at the public institutional level.  Do the students at University of Michigan, for example, really need more money, considering they already are bathed in it relative to someone attending, for example, Central Michigan University, or even lower on the scale, a rural Michigan CC?  This is made even worse by the state governments, who for some reason believe in making the rich richer at public universities, and therefore give MORE public money to the universities that already have the largest endowments and best facilities.

Taking the state of Michigan as an example, what if the state government reduced Michigan's public funds by 50% of any donation to the university, and then distributed that money across all state universities based on enrollment?  Under such a scheme, Michigan and Michigan State would probably lose and everyone else gain.  Sounds fair to me.  U of M does not need a new five million dollar exercise room more than Kirtland Community College needs the money to pay its adjuncts a living wage.

[Robert C. Bowman, M.D. U of NE]

Medical students are a further concentration of rich and poor with an explosion in the gap since 1997 and admissions of highest income students (parents over $100,000 income in 1997) increasing from 23.5% to 51.5% and eroding into half of poorest quartile (parents less than $40,000 in 1997) and 15% of both middle quartiles.

The following are a reflection of the distance between rich and poor in the nation, in proximity in miles from medical schools, in urban vs rural, in income vs poverty, in top schools vs poor schools, in college educated and professional vs those with high school education and below, in health and wealth vs poor health and being poor.

Admissions Ratios and Allopathic Medical Students

Ratio of Population to
Medical Students   
   Medical Students 1994-2000   
% of Medical Students
22.6   Asian Indian              8,136   6.5%
59.7   Chinese                      4,882   3.9%
63.2   All Asian Students   20,340   16.2%
67.2   Top Quintile Income   75,329   60.0%
83.6   Vietnamese              1,424   1.1%
138.6   All Urban Born*      109,228   87.0%
201.7   US All Student Total   125,549   100.0%
201.7   2nd Quintile Income   25,110   20.0%
214.1   White, average all   81,973   65.3%
279.9   All Foreign Born*   7,533   6.0%
314.7   Only Native American   871   0.70%
356.9   All Rural Born    *   16,321   13.0%
373.6   3rd Quintile Income   15,066   12.0%
422.4   Black students, M&F   8,880   7.1%
501.3   Any Native American    871   0.70%
616.4   4th Quintile Income   10,044   8.0%
677.6   Low Income Rural*   3,690   2.9%
756.3   All Hispanic (rough est.)   5,975   4.8%
915.1   Mexican American       2,887   2.3%
2689.8   Bottom Quintile           2,511   2.0%

Estimates of bottom quintile difficult, rang 1 – 3% or 1 in 1600 to 1 in 4000.

*data derived from AMA Masterfile for 1994 – 2000 classes, all other AAMC data

The range basically involves those who gain admissions at 99% levels to those who do not escape from achievement tests or high school.

The changes in admissions in the past 8 years involve a replacement of the physicians most likely to distribute to rural and underserved areas and primary care and family medicine careers with those least likely to distribute. The current rapid medical school expansion favors those who are poised at the top ready to take advantage of more medical school positions.

Those less likely to be admitted, rural or inner city origin, had to decide by secondary school and work for extra years and decades and still were admitted 4 or more years later than typical medical students. Such is the gap that had to be overcome that existed by age 5 or 10 or 12 and took a lifetime to overcome. Of course this effort has shaped these individuals in a way most suited for careers involving people and health care, which is why older students choose primary care, family medicine, psychiatry, underserved primary care, and rural careers at increasing levels with age at graduation of 70 – 150% higher.

The youngest students had the least obstacles in education and income and the most direct path to elite colleges and medical schools and MCAT scores and board scores and subspecialty choice and major medical school zip code practice locations, just like the zip codes where they were born, raised, educated, and trained. As a group in the top subspecialties, they also have the highest dissatisfaction levels with their subspecialty careers.

Somewhere along the line many never managed to integrate the necessary people skills with their academic development and no one ever told them that a medical career, most involving people, was a poor match for those that failed to develop people and management abilities.

All along the line the lower and middle income types were told, formally and informally, that they would never make it. Because of the barriers of income and education they constantly had to rely on people skills to get by. And the few that have survived make impressive contributions as physicians in the most critical areas.

Fortunately life is tough enough so that enough high income kids at some point over a 30 year period will have to develop, even those such as myself who learned later in life through interactions with my different kids and dissonant school systems. For those that never had to grow up or never chose to grow up and have failed to find assistants with people skills to protect and advise them, I fear for their patients.

In the past 8 years, more and more service oriented young professionals will have decided that the gaps are too wide to overcome, and will choose other careers or will avoid medicine entirely.

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.
rbowman@unmc.edu

[Observer]

Anon's post has to rank right up there among the most inane ever to appear on a Chronicle site.  If there was such a study, anticipating this view, I'd like to see the reference.  What a lovely concept--penalize an institution for seeking private funds that enhance its operation without additional cost to the taxpayers.  

Flash # 1:  endowment gifts yield a payout of approximately 5% on the principal.  You need to raise a tremendous amount of endowment to complement the ongoing support from the state.

Flash # 2: donors would be disincented to give money to, e.g., Michigan if they knew that the result would be a loss of other funding.  Your scheme would collapse instantly.

Flash # 3: the top public universities are now receiving a piddling amount of their budgets from their states.  I would guess that the state contribution to the U of Michigan budget, e.g., is probably around 10% of the whole.  We used to have 'state institutions'.  We've gone from that to 'state-supported', 'state-assisted' and now, more or less, 'state-located' and--always--state-regulated.  To all intents and purposes the U of Michigan is a private institution.  Have you taken a look at their out-of-state tuition or their fee charges lately?

I hope anon does not vote.

[a different anon]

In response to anon - I'd ask him to take a look at just exactly how much the state gives U of M and he will find that in essence it is a private institution with a state university label. The vast majority of U of M's funding does NOT come from the state of Michigan. This is true of most of the flagship state institutions in the country.

[Public/Private]

Having been at both a large public University (15 years), and a private Master's level since I really have to say I'm glad I left the R1.  The differences in instruction, facilities, and ability to make decisions quickly still amaze me.  The R1 actually encouraged a "me first" attitude in terms of grants and pubs.  They truly could care less how our teaching was; only more grant money was ever rewarded.  

As public's tuition rates increase at an even higher yearly % than private's, the tuition gap is lessening which helps us even more!

[Back on track]

These messages have gotten off track.  The issue at hand is whether or not elite Universities should provide more support for poorer students.  First, the elite institutions do not exist to provide social engineering, or to achieve reallocation of wealth.  Our current federal and state taxation programs do a splendid job of playing Robin Hood already.  The elite institutions exist to provide a high quality education to the best qualified students, regardless of who they are.  If some of the best qualified students are from modest financial backgrounds, it is in the best interest of the University itself to support those students.  The elite Universities should not seek out poorer students just because they are from a less affluent background.  They are under no obligation to do anything but optimize their own success and quality.  Second, many elite Universities have education as only one of their missions.  Research clearly has become the tail that wags the dog, providing reputation and prestige, financial support, national and international recognition, and lately, the potential for significant additional revenue from the commercialization of the faculty's discoveries and intellectual property.  If elite Universities want to invest their money in better facilities and amenities, whether to attract elite faculty or elite students, it is their business.  They are not obliged to follow egalitarian or socialist policies to satisfy the social tinkerers and social engineers.  And third, there are a lot of students from less than wealthy backgrounds who have succeeded wonderfully with an education from outstanding state-supported schools (not the U. of Michigan variety that is for all intents and purposes a private elite University) and community colleges, where an education is more affordable than at elite Universities.  Believe it or not, there are people in this world who have been successful without a Harvard or Yale education.  What the Harvards and Yales do with their money is strictly their own business; those who are so concerned about the less affluent should focus on helping the poor themselves.

[Jennifer Boileau, IT/MxCC, CT]

The greatest problem we face in education (and probably everything) is the ability to disclude someone from it.  When I was a student of a community college, my goal was to get into a high-end college (MIT and Smith were the top two).  

What I learned as a successful student in public higher education was an understanding of what knowledge can open up for me.  I also realized (after being accepted and wooed by Smith, in particular) that if I transferred to an elite college, that would probably be the death of my real education.  An elite college is the easiest out when you're in, and I need to learn the struggle.  

Since those days, I have remained a victim (sic) of the public system, both as a student and an employee.  It seems to fit better than the ivy life, although I won't have the elite network to make my life easier to navigate in the future.  It has been harder.  I have made less.  People don't listen as well and don't feel that they have to, because my credentials are not as "strong."

The only degree I hold currently is from Springfield Technical Community College.  It will always be the one that I regard highest above all, because in obtaining it I became a better person.  I learned that when you commit yourself to a better life, you can overcome even your own doubts.  I also learned a whole lot in classes - mathematics became a hobby again because they so motivated me there.  

I know I disappointed some really great people by passing up an opportunity to have a "golden ticket" for the rest of my life by going to Smith.  I only hope they realize that I became something better just by their sheer belief in me.  Then we may all realize that education is more important than the letterhead of the college.

[It goes beyond education]

Kudos to Jennifer for airing out a dirty little secret of higher education. I graduated from a prestigious (read: rich-kid) Big Ten university, and I too feel that it was more of a challenge to get into the school rather than to get good grades when I was there. I honestly feel that I got more out of my high school education than my college one.

Another point on this topic - you can offer lower-income students all of the financial aid in the world to attend these elite schools, but unless the factors that lead them to leave these institutions - social isolation and lack of proper educational preparedness - are addressed, the system still will not be taking any meaningful steps toward eliminating social stratification through education.

[%sig%]

[The dude]

"Then we may all realize that education is more important than the letterhead of the college."


Great post!  I was thinking much the same thing, but you said it better than I could.

[Me]

As was pointed out in the article that started this discussion, there are a number of interacting variables that influence the percentage of poor kids who attend various institutions. One factor that did not get much attention has to do with perceptions of an institution among poor kids and their families. This has to do with at least two things: "sticker shock" and a sense of belonging. I'll describe what has gone on at my own institution in the past ten years or so.

I work at a medium sized, private, comprehensive university that is rated pretty highly relative to similar institutions in the region. A number of years ago the campus was somewhat shabby and our tuition was on the medium low side relative to comparable schools. We also enrolled a diverse student body, both ethnically and economically. Then the president and trustees decided that we should develop into a "premier" university. They undertook a number of initiatives to make this happen, some substantive, some not. The campus now looks great, with wonderful new student housing, a fantastic rec center, new athletic facilities, and beautiful landscaping.

The president also concluded that our tuition was too low, based on the premise that people evaluate the quality of the school partly on the cost of tuition: high tuition must mean high quality. So tuition has been significantly jacked up and now is among the highest among comparable schools. Of course, financial aid budgets have been increased so that the "discounted" tuition rate hasn't gone up nearly as much as the "sticker price" tuition. In theory this should keep the place nearly as affordable as it was before tuition was jacked up.

So what's the outcome? The percentage of poor and middle class students has decreased significantly. We now have a student body with a large number of students driving new Benzes and Beamers, wearing designer clothers and carrying $300.00 handbags. We have far fewer kids from working class families or who are the first in their families to attend college. Why is this, if the discounted tuition hasn't changed all that much? I believe it's because poor kids and families perceive the cost in terms of the sticker price and the place seems out of reach. I also believe that when they visit the campus, they quickly perceive that this is not a place where they would feel welcome.

I suspect that these factors are at work at many elite institutions and will require significant efforts to oversome, assuming the institutions really want to overcome them, a dubious assumption at best.

[%sig%]

[L.L.]

a different anon wrote:

> In response to anon - I'd ask him to take a look at just
> exactly how much the state gives U of M and he will find that
> in essence it is a private institution with a state university
> label.

I'm always amused by those who forget about the physical assets of state universities -- classroom buildings, offices, etc. For example, a Mr. W.L. Churchill used to claim how "profitable" his courses were -- failing, of course, to include the overhead cost of facilities.

IMHO, state residents OWN those physical assets -- NOT some private entity. In the real world, those assets have to be accounted for.

[%sig%]

[Anon Ymous]

I think the real issue is that there's this idea that everyone who wants to go to college should go.  We let just about anyone go to college and it's often with detrimental results.  I teach at a small rural university where many of the students flunk out either because they are inadequately prepared or don't really care about school.  If we were more particular about who we let it, there would be more money to go to those students who really deserve it and they wouldn't have to work ridiculous hours.

[lark]

to Back on Track, You made some good points, and thanks for getting the discussion "back on track."  

But, you said, <<>>

Our tax funded welfare system does a miserable job of playing Robin Hood, and currently is contributing to the decline of bachelor's degrees among the poor.

Prior to welfare reform, very bright students who were on welfare could complete a bachelor's degree.   Beginning in 1997 with welfare reform, recipients were allowed 5 years of assistance during a lifetime, but were only allowed to do two years of education during that time.  

Now, the Bush administration is only allowing one year of education during the 5 years on assistance.  So, recipients are allowed 5 years on assistance to pull their lives together, but they are not allowed to use that time to get an education, (higher or basic) even if funding is available and academic testing shows that they are qualified.  

Furthermore, if they have a setback, say, a return of their mental illness or physical health problems, or renewed threats by the domestic violence perpetrator from their past, and this setback causes them to drop out of school for a while, they may find that they will not be allowed to go back to school, and they may be forced to pay back all the grant money given to them for the education to date, if they can't complete the schooling within a two year period, beginning with the original start date, not total time in class.  Suddenly having to repay a $5,000 or $25,000 education grant, while not being allowed to finish, is a serious threat to the people in the bottom 10% of the socioeconomic ladder.

The system is stingy and punitive, and sets people up to fail, even before the colleges and universities think about creating support in academe.