Education is the Great Equalizer. Or is it?

Brenda Marina and Nickole Holmes explore obstacles to access to higher education that mar our American myth.

OUR AMERICAN HIGHER Education System plays a crucial role in determining and perpetuating the inequalities in wealth, power, and social class in our society. It does so by serving as the gatekeeper to middle- and upper-class status. According to Lisa Tsui, higher education inherited this function when positions of power and privilege became increasingly dictated by the possession of diplomas and certificates instead of ancestry. Education affords opportunities for an improved everyday life—for example, health and well-being. Education also strongly affects economic growth of both individuals and of the greater society. The benefits and influence of higher education on social groups is a recurring theme throughout The Chronicle of Higher Education, especially the impact that higher education can have on low-income populations. This article will discuss how the issue of social inequalities affects higher education professionals.

Although some people regard higher education as an equal opportunity vehicle for all to secure the good things life has to offer, others perceive access to higher education as fraught with inequality. Considering race or family income in the college selection process can be contentious for many, but few are bothered when colleges base access on “ability.” Clearly, access is a function of many variables, such as affordability, geography, student preparedness, standardized testing, and the ability to thrive, to name a few. Data have revealed that at least one factor for college admission, standardized testing, is biased, discriminatory, and unfair. For example, in a study on the effectiveness of the SAT I to predict college performance at the University of California, Peter Sacks found that the SAT I was the lesser of two predictors of college performance when compared with high school grades. In fact, the SAT I added no predictive value beyond what could be gleaned from grades and SAT II test scores. Even given the results of such research, the SAT continues to be the measuring stick of ability that determines access to higher education.

SAT I scores are not the only obstacle to access. According to Robert Haveman and Timothy Smeeding, income-related gaps both in access to and success in higher education are large and growing. In the top-tier colleges and universities, almost three-quarters of the entering class are from the highest socioeconomic quartile. The pool of qualified lower-income youth is far larger than the number admitted and enrolled; hence, America's top colleges could enroll more moderate- and low-income students without lowering their selection standards. Universities like Harvard, which has a $25 billion endowment and has perfected the art of producing the wealthy, well-connected alumni who will generously give back, do not necessarily want the brightest students, according to Sacks, but rather the socially “well-rounded” ones who are most likely to become highly paid executives, lawyers, investment bankers, or powerful politicians. Therefore, academically eligible and prepared lower-income students are not being given the opportunity to attend elite universities because of their income status. According to the human capital view of Tsui, graduates of prestigious academic institutions are better rewarded in the labor market because they are equipped with superior educational training. Why should only the financially elite reap the benefits that a Harvard degree offers?

MORE THAN 50 MILLION Americans live in the netherworld of strapped finances and grueling workweeks; they are known as the missing class, or the near poor. Katherine Newman and Victor Chen describe this group as people whose income places them above the poverty line but well below the middle class, so they are disqualified for virtually all public subsidies but nowhere near financially self-sufficient. The near poor remain poor. Since they are not eligible for any kind of public assistance, their entire income goes toward the basics of everyday survival, such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Newman and Chen offer four strategies for decreasing the higher education gap. First, reform K—16 education; second, equalize health care; third, make work pay; and last, help near-poor families save money so that they don't have to turn to public assistance. School reform at the high school level is important in order to adequately serve, academically guide, and intellectually stimulate lower-income students in order to help them become college prepared. At the college level, we must reverse skyrocketing tuition and student debt. The missing class finds it almost as difficult as the poor to pay these costs; both are at risk of dropping out of college when prices rise.

In regard to the ability to save, the government offers millions of dollars’ worth of tax deductions— for mortgage interest and capital gains—to help wealthier households accumulate savings. Increasing access to home ownership would give the missing class a chance to build wealth through equity, something that two-thirds of American households depend on to underwrite financial well-being and retirement. However, Newman and Chen explain, “Many banks shun the poor neighborhoods, depriving families of opportunities for savings, alternatives to check-cashing companies and their exorbitant fees, and loans at reasonable interest rates for buying a car and paying for college education” (p. B10). Or buying a house. The near poor often can't get mortgages, and the crisis of the subprime lending market has made matters worse.

Hindered by poor-performing public schools, many students drop out before earning a high school diploma, according to Karin Fischer. Even as college degrees become an ever more indispensable vehicle for getting out of poverty, the numbers of racial and ethnic minorities (and students from other groups that are historically underrepresented in higher education) in inner-city schools are growing. The small number of these students who do enroll in college often struggle to succeed, battling poor preparation and juggling work and family responsibilities. The biggest barrier to success for inner-city youths is students’ basic skills. Getting bogged down in remedial courses can discourage students from earning a community college degree or going on to a four-year university. For first-generation students, the ins and outs of applying for college admission and financial aid can also be a barrier.

Our society often uses education as a measuring stick to determine who is eligible to reap the benefits of economic and social mobility. Research reported by Tsui that examines differential outcomes associated with college prestige or selectivity provides a preponderance of evidence that institutional selectivity is positively related to a host of outcomes, including educational attainment, income, and job status.

Higher-income parents make enormous efforts to ensure their children's academic success, while children of poor parents begin the college education game later and with fewer resources. Haveman and Smeeding report that students in poor and minority neighborhoods are less well prepared academically; ill prepared to select colleges, apply for admission, and secure acceptance; and poorly informed about the cost of attending college and the availability of need-based financial aid. Turning bright students away affects higher education and society as a whole. It has been said that children are our future, but perhaps the reality is that only middle-class and elite children are our future?

FOR A HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATOR in Ohio, the issues discussed in this article have a significant impact, whether directly or indirectly. Board of Regents Chancellor Eric D. Fin-gerhut has implemented a ten-year proposal to unite Ohio's thirteen public universities and twenty-three community colleges under one banner in order to focus on their common goals. This union will affect all higher education administrators. The proposal's goals will force the colleges and universities to reassess their current admissions policies, standards, and criteria for access and to make greater efforts to meet the needs of students from every walk of life. By doing so, this union will allow students easier transferability among Ohio's universities and colleges. Such a change will permit students to attend 2-year institutions at a lower cost while completing their general requirement courses and then successfully transfer to a 4-year institution. Another goal of this proposal is to allow greater geographical access to provide students more convenient locations and times to attend classes. There is also a goal to collect educational statistical data to monitor and measure enrollment, preparation, transfers, academic progress, degree production and graduates’ employment, financial issues, and affordability.

The proposal focuses on a holistic K—16 approach: improving teacher quality, exploring financial aid options for attending college and universities, strengthening the union between secondary and postsecondary education, as well as K—16 partnerships such as local, business, and community programs. Programs such as STARS and GEAR UP are examples of the K—16 initiative which provide supportive services for disadvantaged, traditionally underrepresented, and high-achieving low-income students with an equal opportunity to receive a postsecondary education.

The Ohio Board of Regents’ new Web site offers information on how to get financial aid, grants, and scholarships; emphasizes student access and success, as well as accountability and quality; and promotes an atmosphere of responsiveness to issues concerning assessment and accountability among Ohio colleges and universities. Higher education is a commodity to which all citizens should have equal access. The benefits will be felt locally, nationally, and globally.

Higher education professionals need to understand and be aware of how social inequalities affect the mission, learning styles, curriculum, assessment, and policies at their institution. The benefits of higher education should be equally accessible to everyone. The financial constraints and social inequalities involved in acquiring an education must be removed so that the poor and the near poor can all have a chance to get a slice of the American pie.