News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 16, 2007
Last week Columbia University announced a $400 million gift for financial aid — the kind of philanthropic grand gesture that most colleges only dream about. On Friday, the university was host to a gathering of college presidents, professors, foundation officials and others to talk about who goes to college, who doesn’t and what they learn there.
While the gift was referenced several times, the celebratory tone of that announcement was gone: Those gathered are worried — deeply worried — about whether top colleges are sufficiently open to low-income students, and whether colleges are providing the right experience for all of their students. “Anxiety about waste” is how Andrew Delbanco, director of American studies at Columbia and organizer of the conference, described it, and he wasn’t talking about the environment but “wasted human potential.”
Participants noted the tremendous successes of American higher education, but a repeated theme was that American colleges are at some kind of juncture — at risk of going backwards (if they aren’t already) in their ability to be agents of what Anthony W. Marx, president of Amherst College, called one of their crucial roles in society: to provide “mobility based on merit.”
Marx and others said that they worried about elite colleges becoming inaccessible, about an irrational admissions process, about the ever-escalating cost of college, about quick fixes to these problems that may not be quick or fixes, about whether it was elitist or common sense to focus their discussion on highly competitive colleges, and why the public doesn’t understand the way academics look at these issues.
Delbanco told the group that there are two distinct, and not entirely mutually exclusive, ways to look at American higher education. One is the “triumphant story” of gradually expanding access. Befitting the literary scholar he is, Delbanco quoted Melville’s description of Captain Ahab as someone “who has been in colleges as well as among the cannibals” as a sign of how limited college attendance was seen in the American imagination. Going to college and hanging out with cannibals were “equally freaky,” Delbanco said.
Fast forward to a line in Arthur Miller’s All My Sons: “You stand on the street today and spit, you’re gonna hit a college man.” The idea there: College opened not only to greater numbers of men, but women, members of once excluded ethnic and racial groups, etc. etc.
But that’s one story only, Delbanco said. The other is one in which the higher education system “not only sustains, but enlarges the gap” between societal haves and have-nots, where the admissions frenzy to get into top colleges “dominates and distorts the lives of adolescents,” where standardized tests have become “tools for the wealthy” to get into college, and where students enter college so burnt out and cynical that they don’t want to open their minds, where campus counseling centers are overwhelmed with patients, and where cheating is rampant.
While Delbanco had scorn for the “corporate style academic entrepreneurship” that is encouraged by many colleges, he was also critical of the professoriate. There are too many top faculty members who “fly from conference to conference,” but can’t be bothered to think about what students should learn, he said.
Marx, of Amherst, said that he was very proud of the progress his college is making in reaching out to more low-income students. Twenty percent of this year’s freshmen are Pell Grant eligible, up from 15 percent just a year earlier. But he also said that “real biases” limit such students in competitive college admissions. These biases are no longer about race and ethnicity, but social class, he said.
Colleges not only require the SAT, but “reward you” if you can afford to take the test multiple times and bring up your score, Marx said. Extracurricular activities in high school have reached “absurd” levels and yet are rewarded in college admissions. Marx cited students who boast of their weekend trips to help the homeless in Honduras as examples of the silliness — and said the example was a real one.
Meanwhile, he said, colleges are much less likely to reward someone who is “working in 7-Eleven to help support a family.”
There is a renewed social Darwinism present in American society that comes out in college admissions, Marx said. Parents who have “made it” assume that they did so on their merits and that their children deserve to make it, too. Colleges need to challenge this directly — and make sure that their policies are consistent with their values. Students these days “are very astute when it comes to hypocrisy,” Marx said.
But while calling for idealism, Marx said colleges need to be careful not to go for the seemingly popular solutions that could create more problems than they would solve. Marx said that he had asked Amherst officials to consider, as an exercise, what would happen if the college stopped charging tuition. The current system is “crazy,” he said, and each tuition increase only adds to the pressure to add to the aid budget.
Amherst would need to double its endowment to drop tuition, Marx said, but would that be the right thing? Would it be a good thing to subsidize “Bill Gates’s kid” or the many others who can afford to pay? And what about higher education as a whole? Marx said that there were “maybe 10” colleges in the country, Amherst among them, that could even have this conversation. If they all eliminated tuition, would that encourage everyone else to offer merit scholarships to draw some of the top applicant pool? Would it create more “bifurcation” among colleges in a way that wouldn’t be healthy for society?
Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president, said he was worried about another admissions issue. “I’m becoming more pessimistic about the survival of affirmative action in this country,” said Bollinger, who in his previous position as president of the University of Michigan led that institution’s fight to the Supreme Court to affirm the right of colleges to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions.
Bollinger noted that Michigan voters recently adopted a state constitutional amendment barring the use of affirmative action in public college admissions, and that foes of affirmative action are planning similar measures in other states. Beyond his frustration with the vote, Bollinger said he was bothered by the “degree of complacency” with which academics had responded to the outcome.
Had Michigan voters barred the teaching of James Joyce, Bollinger said, “you can bet there would be continuous outcries,” and yet there have not been about the Michigan vote against affirmative action. And the ban on affirmative action “is as much a challenge to academic freedom” as would be a ban on teaching Joyce.
Those at the conference got a bit of a challenge on the issue of racial diversity from Thomas R. Bailey, director of the Community College Research Center at Teachers College of Columbia. Bailey pointed out that the closest community college to Columbia is Bronx Community College. There are about 7,200 black and Hispanic students there. That’s about as many black and Hispanic undergraduates as there are in the eight Ivy League universities combined, he noted. And when considering how many of the Ivy undergraduates aren’t from low-income backgrounds, the contrast is even more striking, he said.
If education leaders really want to find ways to educate more minority students, Bailey said, it’s time to realize that the institutions that do have those students operate in “a different universe” from the Columbias of the world. How to best spend $400 million on financial aid? How to attract more low-income minority students? The first question isn’t exactly a hot topic in the Bronx, Bailey said, and as for the second , community colleges aren’t worried about their ability to attract low-income minority students. They do that quite well.
Bailey’s point drove home a point panelists returned to: Does the very competitiveness of top colleges act against diversifying them? Marx said that there is nothing wrong with being highly competitive, but he said colleges that share that value need to be open to ways to make real changes to diversify. Amherst is getting larger, for example, so efforts to attract more minority and international students need not be seen as competing with the constituencies that care about enrollment slots.
Austin E. Quigley, dean of Columbia College, the host university’s main undergraduate college, said his institution was also considering an increase in undergraduate enrollments, along the lines of the plan currently being executed by Princeton University.
Several speakers discussed their concern about the view that higher education is a question of personal gain and not a public good. The educators gathered spoke time and again of the need for true general education to make students critical thinkers and thoughtful leaders.
Nancy Cantor, chancellor of Syracuse University, talked about her encounters with students. In some cases, she spoke of the pride of hearing a student report on how working with the poor in Central America had changed her perspective on people in developing nations, and given her a sense that such people are real — not just some statistic.
But Cantor talked about the “sadness” she felt when, after signing the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, a student journalist came to interview her and the first question was: “What’s in it for students?,” as if a university’s responsibility for the environment should be analyzed in terms of a tuition increase.
Cantor said that colleges need to emphasize a “new 3 R’s”: reflection, reciprocity and responsibility. Students need to “take time to watch others and learn from them,” Cantor said. Of reciprocity, she said that students need more than “cyberconnections” but real interaction with people they like, people they disagree with, people unlike them — on equal terms.
As for responsibility, she said that when a problem takes place at a college or in higher education, talk immediately turns to “weeding out the bad apples.” Perhaps it’s time for another approach, she said: “Changing the culture.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
The current financial aid approach of the Ivy Leagues risks an underrepresentation of students from relatively high income, but not rich, families. Many parents with household incomes of about $150,000, who qualify for minimal (if any) aid assistance, balk at spending 33% of their annual income on college expenses for their child. After all, many home mortgage companies would refuse to extend a loan that consumes that great a proportion of a couple’s income. The discussion of a hypothetical Amherst tuition-elimination proposal should more realistically be posed as a proposal to increase its endowment so that its tuition would be equivalent to that of the average tuition of the top public universities in the nation (ie. an endowment-subsidized vs. government-subsidized tuition approach). The Ivy Leagues could supplement this approach with a tuition-abatement program aimed at lowering costs even further for low-income students, much as occurs at public universites. Such an approach would go far in opening up the university selection process for students of widely diverse economic backgrounds. College selection might then become a process of finding a good fit academically, rather than finding a good fit in affordability.
Donna Barnes, at 11:08 am EDT on April 16, 2007
Yes, of course it would be a good thing to end legacy admits and instead base admissions on objective criteria of merit. But how does that square with the (misguided) objective of sorting people on the basis of their pigmentation and somehow ensuring that more people with the desirable pigmentation levels attend college?
Prof. Challenger, at 11:48 am EDT on April 16, 2007
The media obsession with what Amherst and Harvard are doing is no different from the media obsession with what Paris Hilton and “Brangelina” are doing. Who cares. The population of the United States is 300,000,000. Amherst College is going to accept, what, 500 freshmen? It is hard to imagine something more trivial to the general society than this.
John Q, at 12:01 pm EDT on April 16, 2007
While I applaud efforts to increase racial and socioeconomic diversity in higher education, I’m surprised that more commentators aren’t stating the obvious: starting in or before kindergarten, racial and socioeconomic factors do much to ensure the current stalemate.
I grew up in a school system that rejoiced when our state test scores put us on “academic probation” instead of “academic emergency.” Yet I and several other white friends went to the likes of Yale.
One educational experience we shared stays with me. How, I wonder now, did my “gifted and talented” class from grades 3-5 include only two black students, in a district that was 40% African-American? Few, if any, of us belonged to the near-majority of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Selected by a second-grade test for extra intellectual stimulation, we exited the program at 10 even more “college material” than we went in at 7. Our peers stayed behind with less challenging work and lower expectations.
Don’t get me wrong: I loved that program. But it highlights the chicken and egg dilemma that stalks the educational system all the way through. If a test can determine that 15 white and 2 black seven-year olds are “gifted,” when the ratio should have been almost even, the SAT is not the place to start worrying about educational inequity. Either the test was biased, we white kids of professional parents were better prepared to take it, or both — I’m ruling out the Charles Murray option.
Like many educators, I suspect both. Maybe, instead of annual agonies over the continued white, middle-to-upper-class dominance of higher education, colleges and universities should focus their resources on early childhood opportunities in their communities. Race, class, and opportunity are far more tangled than that, of course. But if the social sorting process starts at birth, then birth is the place to start making it fair.
SRH, One of the Accursed Ivies, at 3:46 pm EDT on April 16, 2007
I think SRH’s point is right on the money. These inequities are seeded all the way through edu, from the beginning to the end. To fix them, dumping money into undergrad programs is a welcome move, but it comes very late in the game. As someone who was the beneficiary of private east coast schools and who now works with predominantly lower middle class and working class first generation college goers in the Inland Empire, I can clearly see the ways in which my students come to the table disadvantaged from years of sub-standard education, mentoring, expectation, and a lack of informed familial and cultural support. We got to start earlier to make a difference.
Stephanie Hammer, seven sisters grad at UC Riverside, at 5:55 am EDT on April 17, 2007
John Q has it right, and so too Bob at State U. The gross endowments of Amherst et al. and the Ivy League Schools taken together (perhaps Harvard’s separately) outdo the GDP of some nations. They can accept whomever they want, and they suggest some outside force or power beyond their control is letting something slip away from them? It beggars belief—as do those in these reports who buy the line or tug on it. A college education almost anywhere these days is grossly overvalued economically and socially. It’s money laundering for the rich and insurance premiums for the rest. Education as we’ve known it is history. We’re all in vo tech now. Anyone know where a good loan can be had?
Mark Scott, at 5:55 am EDT on April 17, 2007
We need more campus diversity. If too many smart people get into Columbia and Amhurst, we need affirmative action for dumbasses.
Mofuka Stebbins, at 6:21 pm EDT on April 19, 2007
Except, contrary to Bollinger and the report referenced, affirmative actions was not banned in Michigan, Racial preferences were. The failure to understand that distinction and the attendant poor use of the language is of not small influence on the low level of discussion and discussions of this issue and others in higher education.
William W. Pendleton, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, at 8:55 pm EDT on April 19, 2007
“Had Michigan voters barred the teaching of James Joyce, Bollinger said, “you can bet there would be continuous outcries,” and yet there have not been about the Michigan vote against affirmative action. And the ban on affirmative action “is as much a challenge to academic freedom” as would be a ban on teaching Joyce.”
Wow. Kind of sums up the focus of academia today in a nutshell.
Quick question for Bollinger — [and I don’t just mean this as a knock on U of M; this is true of many schools, but given that it is Bollinger’s old school. . .]
What percentage of Michigan grads have even read an entire James Joyce novel from start to finish? Does Bollinger consider this to be a sad state of affairs and, if he does, does he think the fact he sees opposition to his pet political position to be the academic equivalent of banning books as a possible reason his university is in this state?
SB, at 6:00 am EDT on April 20, 2007
You could bring in as many high-achieving low-income minority students as you wanted without engaging in illegal discrimination if you aggressively recruited in Africa.
Would anyone reading this have a problem with that?
Why or why not?
Laika’s Last Woof, Out of Africa, at 5:25 am EDT on April 25, 2007
While the focus on race, class and income is important it fails to address the practical matter that if you recruit students who lack the basic educational tool skills and knowledge to be successful in higher education then recruitment is moot. What will you do with students who “can’t make the grade"? Grade eleveation? Pass them through to keep minority and econoomic class graduation stats up?
Committment to broad based recruitment also requires a financial committment to access to remedial coursework, tutoring and critical thinking. Without adequate support systems awarding degrees but not an education makes colleges complicit in a student’s personal failure by recruiting them into situations where they are not prepared to meet the challenges and are not given the remedial support to do so.
Steve, Associate Professor, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 3, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Department of Sociology invites applications for a tenure-track Assistant ... see job
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job
CSM is currently seeking a Mathematics 10-month faculty member who has extensive prior experience and/or skills in the ... see job
Columbus State Community College invests in employee development by providing numerous resources, partnerships, training and ... see job
Posting Description: The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) has an opening for a full time exempt ... see job
Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job
The Department of Sociology at the University of California, Irvine invites applications for possible visiting lecturer ... see job
The successful applicant is expected to have a master’s degree in exercise science or related area. see job
“Beyond his frustration with the vote, Bollinger said he was bothered by the “degree of complacency” with which academics had responded to the outcome.”
Lack of criticism for the Michigan vote to end affirmative action is understandable since many of us are delighted with the result. The supporters of racial discrimination might be rather subdued because the message from the American people that their time is past is finally getting through. Bollinger’s comments are particularly out of place in the context of this report, as the purpose of affirmative action is to allow colleges to pick the most privileged members of protected groups while leaving the economically-deprived of all races behind.
Enough, at 8:35 am EDT on April 16, 2007