<p>NPR reports on Amherst's struggle to reconcile class differences and the academic advantages of wealth in order to level the economic playing field for students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Amherst College President Anthony Marx sees class as one of the fundamental problems facing American colleges and universities today.</p>
<p>the picture of WASPy privilege. However, the school is not homogenous. Despite the fact that almost everyone in the cafeteria is dressed in fleece jackets, sweaters and jeans, the students here run the gamut from super-rich to working-class...</p>
<p>President Marx believes that American colleges have no choice but to try to address class. He says it's their responsibility as educators, noting that in a society that's becoming more divided by class, schools like Amherst College are among the few places where people of all income levels can interact.
<p>"schools like Amherst College are among the few places where people of all income levels can interact."</p>
<p>Except those in the middle to upper middle quintiles ($40-$92k in family income). Because, at Amherst, statitically, you'll hardly find any (and the bulk of those you find will be recruited athletes - nothing wrong with that.)</p>
<p>The breakout?</p>
<ul>
<li>52% or so receive no need-based aid, putting them in the top 3% of the population; average income $225k+</li>
<li>Of the rest, half are in the top quintile, $92-$165k, or 24%</li>
<li>17% on Pell Grants, $40k or below</li>
<li>Which leaves 7% of the entire school between $40-$92k.</li>
</ul>
<p>The numbers may change by a percent or so in any direction, but no matter how you cut it, the number of students in the middle and upper middle income brackets are a small and vanishing breed.</p>
<p>Didn't see the show, but I find this statement very hard to believe:</p>
<p>"However, the school is not homogenous (sic)."</p>
<p>Sounds more like wishful thinking to me. Let's face it: Relatively speaking, there isn't a private LAC in the country that reflects the diversity of this country. Not even close.</p>
<p>I don't know of a LAC in the country that has 3% or less of its student body coming from the top 3% of the population, except one - Berea - and they have zero. Still there are some that come a lot closer than others. </p>
<p>Amherst, whose efforts I wholeheartedly and without reservation applaud, wouldn't be among them. (Interesting that their articles of incorporation call for education of "indigent students of good character" - something happened along the way....)</p>
<p>Spare me! The typical limosuine liberal who thinks that by letting a few of the hoi polloi into the country club he is helping the "lower" classes.</p>
<p>Flagship state universities come much closer to reflecting the diversity of America (at least diversity among the more accomplished students). Even there, you find relatively few of the very poor--particularly those from the inner city</p>
<p>Amherst's website states that 64% of students receive some need-based aim. They are trying!</p>
<p>And Amherst HAS been trying to recruit high-achieving community college students. It's become a major mission of theirs, in fact. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that the makeup of the student body is at all reflective of the country as a whole, but as a very low-income student, I've never felt out of place here. I think they've been wonderful to me and other students like me.</p>
<p>While it is probably true that at most of very top LACs the middle to upper middle quintiles of income are somewhat underrepresented, I don't think it is fair to use that statistic to criticize Amherst for failing to educate "indigent students of good character." Income of $40k is hardly indigent. And it appears to me that Amherst is trying to do more than most in opening access to the very lowest income families. </p>
<p>That does probably leave the children of the middle class with the choice of going elsewhere or shouldering huge loans. We are fortunate in the U.S., however, to have many great choices in higher education. There are many very good LACs that will offer strong merit awards to middle class kids who qualify academically for Amherst.</p>
<p>"And it appears to me that Amherst is trying to do more than most in opening access to the very lowest income families."</p>
<p>Absolutely true, and they are to be commended for it. And I really mean that. But it is still has one of the wealthiest student bodies in the country. </p>
<p>64%? Nope. That includes loans, and outside scholarships not awarded by Amherst.</p>
<p>A quote from the Amherst Financial Aid Office website:</p>
<p>"Scholarships and Grants: $21,836,000 received by 48 percent of students"</p>
<p>The stats are exactly as I quoted them. The above is hardly "more than most". What is true is that they have more very poor students (under $40k), so far obtained by allowing the middle two quintiles to virtually vanish from the scene. I think this will change slowly in the coming years - I do think Marx is serious. But Amherst is far, far from being a leader in this regard.</p>
<p>In the lucky 7%, and I mean that without sarcasm, and with full seriousness (so was mine, at Williams, though she made a different decision). It is a great institution (and I say that as an Eph!)</p>
<p>Does the 64% really include outside aid? That would seem very deceptive to me. I assumed it included loans, but don't loans qualify as "need based aid"?</p>
<p>The most recent stats, from the 2005-2006 school year (2006 CDS) - showed that 51.6% of their freshman class were determined to have financial need; 46.5% of all undergraduates have financial need. Virtually all students determined to have need received grant aid as well as self-help aid (loans and work-study). The average need-based grant was $33,274 for first years, $31,393 overall. Amherst's tuition and mandatory fees for that year $34,916. Room & board is about $13,800. </p>
<p>So basically the stats show that about half of the incoming class receives aid, and that they tend to have EFC's (as determined by institutional methodology) of around $15,000. (In other words, that's what the average student is left to pay after financial aid is accounted for).</p>
<p>Mini, would you explain what you mean about ejr's kid being among the "lucky"? At what point are you saying is the luck involved? Are you saying that students in that income range are accepted at lower rates than other comparable students? Are you saying that they're under-funded in FA compared to other students? EAch of those would be pretty serious charges.</p>
<p>Or, are you saying that students in that income range are less likely to apply to Amherst (in which case, ejr's kid is not "lucky", because choosing to apply or not is not a matter of luck.) </p>
<p>Basically, I'd like to know, beyond a recital of the statistics, what you think is the reason that ejr's kid is "lucky", which implies overcoming a particular set of odds. And i think germaine to that would be knowing what percentage of applicants fall into that income range, before we assume that they are "lucky" to be accepted.</p>
<p>Hey, Amherst has to keep that endowment growing and we are overdue for a stock market reversal quite soon me thinks.</p>
<p>We do have friends whose son recently graduated from Amherst and I would guess that they do fall into that 7% middle class category.</p>
<p>Given the state of the US economy and the growing economic divides, issues associated with economic class will only become more problematic. It was recently reported that the majority of people living in poverty are now located in suburban areas. And with the national savings rate dipping into negative territory for the first time in more than 60 years, the prospects for a reversal of current trends seems highly unlikely.</p>
<p>Better redouble those efforts Prexy Marx. Now isn't that name an interesting one.</p>
<p>Concretely, Marx is advocating not only intensified efforts to recruit and admit highly qualified, low-income students, but also admission preferences for low-income students of the type now given to other categories such as recuited athletes, URMs, and legacies. The plan, as I understand it, is to admit significantly larger classes to help create space for more low-income students. William Bowen, among others has been trumpteting such initiatives for the past couple of years:</p>
<p>Amherst's plan seem ambitious, and enourmously expensive--clearly one of the big ticket items in new spending for the near future. It will put added strain on faculty and other support resources. Some students, faculty and alums are skeptical. And I can't see more than a sliver of self-interest for Amherst in doing it. It seems like Marx is undertaking it because he's convinced, simply, that it's the right thing to do. I applaud him. He leads one of only a handful of institutions in the country who have the resources to tackle this on any significant scale.</p>
<p>It is absurd to think that one is going to make any signiificant impact on the class divide by shifting 50 or 100 of the most talented lower income students from flagship state universities to Amherst (or, for that matter, to each of the 30 most prestigious LAC's). Frankly, you could get more bang for your buck by admitting more full price students and investing the money that you save in grassroots programs designed to improve the chances of low and moderate income people to attend and receive their degrees from less expensive institutions.</p>