Conventional wisdom says Asian-American applicants face higher hurdle than others at elite colleges. Federal probe raises question of whether differential standards can be proven and -- if so -- would violate the law.
Income and wealth inequality in the United States, which has become even more pronounced since 1967, continues to interfere with the national need for an increasingly sophisticated and skilled workforce and citizenry. Federal financial assistance to financially needy college students is a rational response to this recognized social and economic inequality. About 30 years ago, in ways clearly demonstrated by Tom Mortenson in ”How to Limit Opportunity for Higher Education 1980 – 2011,” federal and state policy shifts placed an increasing share of the cost of higher education on students and their families, turning higher education into a commodity provided to those who could pay. Primarily as a consequence of these policies and the associated spiraling costs of attending college, the growth in the portion of our population with a college degree has been slow, increasing from 17 to 30 percent over the past 30 years. Strikingly, the gains were made primarily by those from the wealthiest backgrounds (18 percent increase) in contrast to a small 4 percent growth, over the same 30 years, for those in the lowest socioeconomic quartile.
Globally, as various analyses show, while many countries are making solid progress in educating their populations, the United States is losing ground, slipping from first to 12th among 36 developed countries in percent of the population with a degree. Although American students from the upper quartile of the national income distribution can continue to have high expectations of completing college, their success alone is not enough for our economy and society to thrive.
If we are to educate the nation to meet the current challenges of the global economy, our democratic society, and our planet, we need to use all means possible to educate the largest number of people possible. This will require increased financial assistance for low- and moderate-income students. Federal and state support for education is the single most rational investment we can make in our future. Yet we continue to face threats even to the inadequate support that remains today. Some current candidates for president of the United States oppose any federal role in supporting college students.
The return on investment (tax dollars) in Pell Grants and other forms of federal assistance is currently being measured by the number of degrees produced for the number of grants given. Since data are not systematically collected, it is estimated that 30 to 50 percent of Pell recipients graduate with a bachelor’s degree in six years or an associate degree in three years.
Whatever the exact number, for some observers it is easy to conclude simplistically that the "return" is not worth the investment of tax dollars -- even at a 50 percent degree completion rate -- because those who receive Pell Grants aren’t measuring up and therefore Pell funds must be reduced. Interestingly, there is no national discussion about the effectiveness (or not) of tax credits for college tuition, which benefit those with higher incomes. And merit aid by institutions of course helps the wealthier and leaves less need-based aid.
Although finances are often among the primary reasons for student dropouts or stopouts before degree completion, higher education cannot avoid its share of the responsibility. We cannot evade blame for our own inability to innovate and respond to the students in our colleges and universities by simply pointing to their lack of financing and lack of academic preparation for higher education. We college and university administrators and faculty need to own this issue. We need to own the overall 56 percent graduation rate for all those who enroll in college -- keeping in mind that graduation rates correlate perfectly with family income level. In 2009, the bachelor’s degree completion rates for those who enrolled in a college or university were 19.9 percent for those from the lowest income quartile, 28.2 percent for the second quartile, 51.4 percent for those from the third quartile and 97.9 percent for those from the top quartile. (Mortenson “Family Income and Educational Attainment 1970 to 2009”).
These data make clear that the crisis in higher education completion rates in the United States is really a crisis of completion for this who are not wealthy.
Copious data, like Mortenson’s cited above, indicate that a caste-like education system exists in America. The economic group you are born into is the best predictor of your access to and completion of a college degree. This should be unacceptable to a democracy. It should be unacceptable to higher education. How can we feel good about being part of an enterprise in human development that solidly succeeds only with wealthy people?
Instead of asking what’s wrong with the students who don’t complete a college education, we need to admit that something is wrong with the educational experience offered to almost half of the students who actually enroll. What is the matter with the way we are educating in the 21st century that results in these low success rates for those that we enroll? Only if you come from the highest income quartile (over $100,000) can we feel comfortable that you will be a “good fit” and continue on the path of intellectual and social development that will lead to the awarding of a college degree.
Is it not the responsibility of educators to address this caste-like education system and not leave the statistics for policy makers to use as justification for eliminating financial support for those who need it? Pell Grants are currently being defined as a failure based on the graduation rates of those who receive them. Implicit in the condemnation is a suggestion that the recipients of Pell Grants are not “college material” and so they fail to complete college. But while Pell Grants are necessary, they are not sufficient: Pell Grants are the means to assist in access and persistence; they are not sufficient on their own to get to the desired ends.
If Pell Grants are to succeed, then institutions must recognize their responsibility to craft learning environments for the 21st century --- collaborative learning environments that engage the whole student as well as the whole campus in learning. If we are serious about changing graduation outcomes, all current systems and processes, that constitute the way we do business, need to be reexamined putting at the center a student who may not have been on a path to college since birth and who must integrate financial and perhaps familial responsibilities into their life as a student. Rather than having this reality be the cause of attrition, how can higher education be reshaped to be inclusive of these full lives? How do recruitment, student life, financial aid, the president’s office, advising, the athletic program, learning inside and outside of the classroom reshape themselves to better meet students where they are rather than where they might be if they came from more privileged backgrounds? Those in higher education are often called upon to apply their wisdom and creativity to finding solutions and improving outcomes that benefit all of us. Educational inequality, particularly as it resides right within the academy, is such a challenge.
The question of financing students and financing the institutions who serve them should be addressed collectively as well: How can costs be reduced by more institutional collaboration and less duplication of services? The demographics of those who earn their living in the academy and are responsible for the values and processes of higher education differ from those who we most need to increase their success in the academy. Yet it is exactly those who are now underrepresented in higher education -- those from low-income backgrounds, who are likely to be the first in their families to attend college, and who are likely to be from communities of color and from rural America; those who may well be the recipients of state and federal assistance -- who are the 21st-century Americans who must take their rightful places in higher education, in our economy and our civil society.
Without them, America will continue to lag behind on the global economic, political and cultural stage. All of these areas are dependent on an educated population that can create far less inequality than we seem willing to accept today. Without them, we are giving up on the power of our country to further evolve the reality of democracy as an inclusive model of how people can progress. Instead, we are accepting increasing inequality and division among people on all measures that matter.
What is the purpose of the 3000+ institutions of higher education in our country if not to meet these students where they are and engage with them in the process of their intellectual growth? And yes, I’ve been in the classroom and know how hard it is. It is extra hard if you can’t take learning outside of the classroom; if you can’t shed the mantle of your own Ph.D. and admit there is much you can learn from your students and from other educators on campus; if you can’t penetrate the elitist boundary between “student life” and “academics”; if the future of your job depends on enrolling “full pay” students and achieving high rankings in U.S. News & World Report; if you see other colleges as competitors for those students and those rankings; if you are forced to function narrowly within the hierarchy of your university and the hierarchy of higher education.
Educators have the capacity as well as the responsibility to discuss, imagine and ask for the changes that are necessary for education in the 21st century. Instead of measuring the “return on Pell,” we should be measuring the success of individual colleges and universities in adding value to our society by producing graduates from among those who have been and remain underrepresented. It’s a challenge that has been addressed by conferences, studies, books, and reports. But where are the regional and national standards to hold colleges and universities accountable for helping the country meet a critical need -- more college- educated citizens from all income backgrounds?
Those of us who have made both education and increasing social justice our life's work have a responsibility to do the work that needs to be done. It starts with being willing to change in order to help transform.
Gloria Nemerowicz, formerly the president of Pine Manor College, is founder and president of the Yes We Must Coalition.
The Center for Community Alternatives’ report on the use of prospective students’ high school disciplinary behavior records in the college admissions review process exposes the wild, wild west that exists with high schools and their disciplinary policies. Both the school-by-school variations in reasons for suspending or expelling students and the differing methods for reporting such information understandably raise concerns about negative implications of the collection and use of such information.
Particularly troubling is the impact that differing disciplinary policies and practices have had on students, primarily underrepresented students, beyond high school. However, CCA’s recommendation that colleges cease any consideration of student discipline as part of the application review process is an irresponsible solution to a problem that requires a more judicious approach. Disciplinary behavior information is important for legal and public safety reasons and is often obtained and used without harming campus diversity.
As an admissions officer at a public four-year institution that serves an urban population, I am always concerned that our admission policies not create barriers for minority students. At my institution, high school applicants are required to provide transcripts and test scores. They also have to indicate whether they have been subject to disciplinary action at their secondary institution and/or have a misdemeanor or felony.
I know the admissions process is often mysterious and daunting, even without requiring supplemental information such as personal essays and recommendation forms, especially for underrepresented students. Requiring criminal history information adds to the fear some applicants have about how they will be viewed during the decision review process. I have spoken with students and parents who are concerned with how disciplinary and/or criminal disclosure information is used in the admissions process, and whether it is necessary, especially if the person has already paid their so-called dues to society. I also have seen a difference between punishments imposed on applicants, and have heard applicants express frustration with biases they have experienced, based on race.
Thus the CCA’s concerns over how this information could come to play in the review are important, but they do not warrant abandoning an often carefully considered process that serves a valid purpose in higher education admissions. Checking a box stating that the student faced disciplinary actions while in high school does not have to be the end of a student’s dream to obtain a college degree.
As a matter of both policy and process, the collection of disciplinary information during the admission process serves an important function in higher education for at least two reasons. First, part of assessing admissibility involves making a determination about character. Students involved in cheating, for instance, may not stack up as favorably as students who have earned their grades honestly.
Second, while some disciplinary disclosures are now required for campus life purposes (and therefore not necessarily used as a factor in admission decisions), there are institutions where the admission process and the enrollment/matriculation process are one and the same. So banning any consideration of disciplinary information in admission presents a procedural obstacle to fulfilling requirements many campuses must meet under state laws and universitywide policies. For instance, changes were made to Indiana law in 2014 restricting the use of expunged criminal history records in the hiring and academic admissions process. This prompted Indiana University to adopt a universal criminal history policy for all campuses.
For reasons such as these, the CCA’s recommendations fall far short of a solution to the problem they rightly identify. I would prefer that higher education focus on CCA’s point about the assessment of disciplinary information by “untrained” professionals, which is something that admissions professionals and their professional associations are well poised to address.
Each institution should adopt its own uniform policy for all applicants requiring the disclosure of any disciplinary action taken against them at another school or college. A collaboration of personnel from admissions, other enrollment services offices and the dean of students/student affairs and legal counsel could be required to write, monitor and review a comprehensive policy, and thereby address concerns related to balancing legal and public safety concerns with diversity recruitment initiatives. Having the same staff responsible for reviewing the disclosures would address the arbitrary decision making by “untrained” staff that CCA notes as a limitation to the review process.
Under well-developed and researched policies, institutional admissions staff could be trained on how to differentiate between those behaviors that would be considered normal teenage behavior versus those actions that, if repeated, would be a potential threat to campus safety. It would be important to emphasize during training the disciplinary review process is not an opportunity for the campus to readjudicate the student for past behavior. Such training would almost assuredly be the subject of ongoing discussion in the professional community that groups like CCA could strongly influence.
Having a policy under which students are asked to disclose information about past behavior and using it in the review process does not automatically guarantee a safer campus. However, the legal ramifications of not collecting information, or receiving it involuntarily and not using it to make an informed decision, should be compelling enough to persuade any institution of the wisdom of an unbiased, uniform and nonjudgmental collection of information about high school disciplinary behavior.
Pamela Brown is associate director of undergraduate admissions at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
Louisiana tried to tighten admissions standards by shifting remediation to community colleges. But when enrollment dropped at four-year universities, without increasing at two-year institutions, the state shifted course.