Gateways or Gatekeepers?

American higher education has always prepared students for their class position. Educational practice, the student experience and social stratification tend to work in tandem.

The curriculum, course offerings, pedagogy, assessments, graduation requirements and even student life encode assumptions about the socioeconomic backgrounds and expected futures of their students.

Institutions that cater predominantly to upper middle class students tend to emphasize small discussion and seminar-style classes that foster critical thinking, debate and personalized attention. This approach, which is typical at elite liberal arts colleges and Ivy League institutions, reflects an expectation that students will move into leadership positions that require these skills.

Most Popular Stories

Most Popular

In contrast, larger public universities often rely on lecture-based formats due to resource constraints and higher student numbers. This approach is less engaging and interactive, reinforcing a more passive learning style that is less conducive to developing higher-order executive skills.

Larger institutions with highly diverse student bodies tend to emphasize standardized testing and rote memorization in their assessments. These methods systematically disadvantage students who do not have steel-trap memories or who think more deliberately. Conversely, more affluent institutions might focus on essays and projects that require critical thinking and independent research, skills that are nurtured earlier in private and well-funded high schools.

The range of courses offered also reflects class assumptions. Elite institutions often provide a wide array of niche, avant-garde or globally focused classes that presume a high level of cultural capital. In addition, internships, study abroad programs and extracurriculars, which are crucial for networking and full-rounded development, are more accessible and encouraged in these institutions.

The focus on career preparation can also vary significantly. Vocational and community colleges are more likely to offer practical and technical courses that prepare students directly for specific job markets, whereas elite colleges may offer more courses designed to develop “soft skills” like leadership, negotiation and strategic thinking, all which prepare students for very different types of careers and positions in management.

In addition to offering substantial amounts of financial aid, highly selective, well-resourced institutions also offer more specialized courses that better prepare students for more prestigious, high-powered careers, reinforcing class divisions over generations. Those schools may seem inaccessible to lower-income students simply due to their perceived elitism as well as the hidden costs of attending college, such as travel.

Elite institutions not only educate but also connect students to networks that can open doors to high-level opportunities. Such networking is a crucial part of preparing for and reinforcing class positions.

In short, the structure and culture of higher educational institutions in the U.S. are deeply intertwined with the country's broader class system and prepare students differently based on the economic and social expectations associated with their backgrounds and presumed futures.

American higher education, in other words, serves a dual role. It’s a bridge to opportunity and a barrier, maintaining the status quo and reinforcing inherited social and economic privileges. Educational credentials function as a form of social currency that gates entry into higher economic and social levels.

***

A few nights ago I saw a student production of a bilingual adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. This version of the tale of star-crossed lovers is transplanted into Alta California in the period between Mexican and Anglo rule, and features a female Romeo.

Romeo y Juliet adds several layers of contemporary relevance to this tale of woe. By moving seamlessly between Elizabethan English and contemporary Spanish, the production served as a bridge between past and present. This resonates with the reality of present-day Texas, where language plays a crucial role in shaping individual and community identities.

This adaptation of the tragedy underscores the Shakespearean theme of division, in which personal, familial and cultural loyalties are tested and societal expectations are challenged. At a time when the Texas legislature has outlawed DEI programs at public universities, the plot also mirrors recent discussions about identity, sovereignty, and cultural and linguistic rifts.

Casting Romeo as a female character, in turn, challenges traditional gender roles and opens up discussions about gender identity and fluidity, Many of the audience’s students saw parallels between their own experiences of navigating multiple cultural identities and witnessing cultural tensions on campus and in their home communities.

By situating the play in early 19th century Alta California, a region undergoing wrenching cultural and political transitions at the time, the setting providing rich ground for exploring themes of conflict rooted in culture, race and contrasting societal norms.

The young protagonists’ struggle against the entrenched prejudices of the older generation also raises issues of youth agency and voice. This struggle is especially timely in a context in which the young are pushing against outdated norms and seeking to transform society—be it in matters of climate change, social justice, or politics and foreign policy. And, of course, themes of love and personal choice are universally relevant, especially as discussions around gender identity, sexual orientation, and the right to choose one’s own path in life become more prominent.

So, too, are the themes of loss and the consequences of hatred. The play’s tragic ending, where miscommunication and haste lead to needless deaths, offers powerful lessons about the consequences of our actions and decisions, particularly in an age dominated by rapid communication and often-precipitous reactions on social media.

Most important of all, the fact that this production is performed by students gives them the opportunity to inhabit the roles, and bring their own interpretations and emotions to the characters.

In performing this adaptation, the students are not merely reciting Shakespeare’s lines; they are actively engaging with the text, reinterpreting it, and making it resonate with their own lives and the issues of today’s world.

Of course, at my institution, acting opportunities are largely limited to theater majors and graduate students—in stark contrast to Yale, where every one of the fourteen undergraduate residential colleges has its own theater.

**

I worry that access to cutting-edge fields is going to be increasingly limited to those students who study at Research 1 universities (R1s) that have extensive faculties in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, data science, neuroscience and sustainability, and which can introduce students to the latest trends in such areas as architecture, fashion, nutrition, pharmacy and social work.

Equity in educational opportunities increasingly takes a wholly new form. It involves access to the infrastructure, funding and human resources that expose students to innovative research and development in high-tech and rapidly advanced fields of study. The concentration of such opportunities at R1s will inevitably reinforce disparities in student outcomes.

Non-R1s must operate with limited budgets that restrict their ability to invest in expensive technology, laboratories and research facilities necessary for cutting-edge fields. They also have fewer faculty members who are engaged in the forefront of research, limiting students’ exposure to advanced topics and mentorship opportunities. In addition, they lack well-established connections with industries that can provide students with internships and job placements in high-tech fields.

How can we mitigate these disparities?

1. Despite resource constraints, underfunded institutions can help talented students develop the foundational skills needed for success in innovative fields like artificial intelligence, data science, information security, neuroscience, and sustainability. They must ensure that their courses are rigorous, up-to-date and aligned with R1 standards and have a host of built-in supports, including bridge programs, tutoring, mentoring, supplemental instruction and supervised research opportunities.
2. These institutions might form inter-institutional alliances between R1 universities and smaller colleges for research and academic programs. This can include shared courses, joint research projects, seamless transfer at the junior or senior levels or 4+1 programs.
3. To bridge curricular gaps, these institutions should use digital platforms to share lectures, seminars and courses from R1 universities. We might encourage students from under-resourced institutions to participate remotely in research programs at wealthier institutions.
4. Specialization offers yet another possibility. Non-R1 institutions might develop niche specialties or focus areas even within broader cutting-edge fields.

In the past, the stratification of colleges in terms of resources, facilities and breadth of curricula mattered far less than it does today. As long as a college offered a traditional liberal arts education, its students got an education that resembled that offered at bigger, better-funded campuses. In many cases, that education was actually better, as faculty were more teaching focused and devoted much more attention to mentoring undergraduates.

Today, campuses differ not only in their facilities and breadth of faculty and programs, but in other ways:

• In students’ average level of academic preparation.
• In the proportion of residential students and the share who participate in extracurriculars.
• In access to cutting-edge programs, state-of-the art technologies, and specialized faculty experts in such fields as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, data science and renewable energy.
• In entrée to research, internship and networking opportunities.

As the demands of the modern workforce evolve and the integration of technology in education deepens, the disparities between institutions in terms of resources and opportunities are becoming more significant, affecting not only the quality of education but also graduates’ long-term career and social outcomes.

This reality underscores a critical challenge within the current landscape of American higher education: the uneven distribution of opportunities across different types of institutions, particularly between research universities and other post-secondary schools. This disparity threatens the foundational democratic promise of higher education, which is to provide equitable access to educational and consequent economic opportunities for all students, regardless of the type of institution they attend.

The democratic promise of higher education is predicated on the idea that a college education should serve as a great equalizer, providing every individual with the chance to improve their personal and professional lives through access to knowledge, skills and critical thinking.

There are no easy answers to the problem we face: equalizing educational opportunities in a high-tech world. Educational equity in the digital age is not simply a matter of going test-optional or recruiting students more aggressively. Nor will the resource gap be closed through some modest funding increases for regional or urban publics.

Leveling the educational playing field and closing the opportunity gap will require us to reimagine higher education as a much more integrated, cohesive and equitable system. That will require institutions to share resources, expertise and opportunities.

Without effective coordination and collaboration, students at smaller, less-funded and or non–research-focused institutions will have limited access to cutting-edge facilities, specialized courses and the extracurricular opportunities that are available at larger research universities. The gap in experiential learning opportunities, such as internships and practical research experiences will widen, exacerbating educational inequities and deepening and perpetuating socioeconomic disparities. ;Higher ed’s ability to promote social mobility will diminish.

If we are to fulfill higher education’s democratic promise, we must treat American higher education as an integrated system rather than as a collection of stand-alone institutions. That will require a paradigm shift in how educational resources, policies and initiatives are coordinated across the country. This approach that we need would emphasize collaboration, standardization and shared goals among public and private universities, community colleges and vocational schools. It will also entail resource sharing, including shared infrastructure, aligned curricula, course sharing and easier transfer of credits.

Many obstacles stand in the way. Balancing institutional autonomy with the need for system-wide coordination and collaboration will be extraordinarily challenging. Then, there’s the fact that various institutions have different missions and cater to diverse student bodies, which will make cooperation difficult to standardize without compromising each campus’s unique strength and focus.

But without greater cross-campus coordination, the talented students who don’t attend a research university will be deprived of the valuable opportunities they deserve. Let’s bridge divides and ensure that higher education truly does open doors and unlock potential.

Let’s build futures, not fences.