Top public universities are becoming disproportionately whiter & richer

<p>"By Mary Beth Marklein, USA TODAY
The nation's top public universities "are becoming disproportionately whiter and richer," says a new report that looks at enrollment and graduation rates at 50 public flagship universities.
The report argues that financial aid practices at those and similar institutions create barriers for low-income and minority students.</p>

<p>"The flagships occupy a special place in cultivating the next generation of leaders in their states," says Kati Haycock, director of the non-profit Education Trust and a co-author of the report, released Monday. "With their special status comes a special responsibility to combine excellence with equity." </p>

<p>Among findings: </p>

<p>•22% of students at 50 flagship universities in 2003 received Pell Grants, a federal aid program that kicks in for families who have children under 18 and earn less than $40,000 a year. That's down from 24% in 1992. </p>

<p>•Among all college students, 24% are black, Latino or American Indian, vs. 12% at the flagships in 2004. That's up from 9% in 1992, but the increases "are swamped by even larger gains in the number of such students graduating from high school," the report says. ...</p>

<p>Between 1995 and 2003, it says, flagships and other public research universities decreased grant aid by 13% for students from families with an annual income of $20,000 or less, while increasing by 406% aid to students from families who make more than $100,000. Typically, grant aid for upper-income students is awarded based on merit to attract high-performing students...."
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-20-financial-aid_x.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-11-20-financial-aid_x.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Sure is true in Florida with Jeb Bush's initiative to get the top students to stay instate. They practically pay the kids to stay.</p>

<p>I think there are more barriers caused by k-12 public education perhaps? Families are picking up the slack for white, middle class kids. Schools are not picking up the slack for lower middle class minority kids, whose families are not equipped/able to do so.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>The schools definitely are not. But it's an open question whether it's actually possible for any school to put lower middle class minority kids on an equal footing with white middle class kids. See this week's NY Times Magazine for a very informative discussion of the schools that are coming the closest.</p>

<p>As for why the number of such kids would have fallen so much at flagship universities over the last 15 years, that's no secret. The K-12 schools were just as inadequate 15 years ago as they are now (arguably worse). But the flagships weren't putting so much emphasis on merit scholarships.</p>

<p>A.Percents can be funny things depending on the base. Did aid to rich students go from $100 to $406 or was it anywhere near the aid to poor students at the beginning? I doubt it.</p>

<p>B. With upper level privates costing >$40k and a little aid if you make over $100K a year the parents and kids are being rational using the state flagship as an economic choice.</p>

<p>I don't really have anything to say about the major point. I'd have to see a lot more of the math the reporter based the story on before it made sense to me. A lot of reporters get sloppy with statistics.</p>

<p>I would like to address the "406% increase in merit aid" statistic. As most old-time CCers know (of which I am not one -- old-time CCer, that is) "merit aid" is actually collegiate marketing money spent to attract certain students. Engineering schools might want more women, liberal arts schools might want more men, big state colleges might want more National Merit Scholars, etc. It's not "financial aid" in any way -- it's a discount given to attract prospective students who are in some way desirable to that college that year. I have a suspicion (not borne out by anything resembling empirical evidence) that much of the run-up in tuitions in the last 15 years are related to the corresponding increase in "merit scholarships" and other targeted financial aid. You increase the list price of the product, and then give deep discounts to favored customers. Other customers -- I mean, "students" -- then subsidize the price, er, tuition, paid by the "desirable" customers. The only surprising thing to me is that it took the public universities so long to start using the tricks the privates have used for a while.</p>

<p>Barrons is "spot on" as the kids say. Yeah, like the Beach Boys used to sing:
'I'm a real cool head .... I'm making real good bread". but the FSA says I have to pay it all. So naturally I urged my son to choose a flagship state university that Newsweek listed as one of the "new ivys" and that US News and World Report had consistently ranked as either first or second for public universities for the last quarter century. Guilty of being "white" although my dad made $6,000 (that's six thousand, no extra zeros) gross at his highest pay with 4 kids and a stay at home wife. Even then I did not qualify for scholarships despite perfect SATs, just loans. (god bless the old Student defense loans) It's a wicked world we live in, and the trend that NorthstarMom identified will only continue as long as the alternatives to top public schools decrease their "merit" scholarships in favor of "need". I am just very thankful that the state schools are an option.</p>

<p>
[quote]
B. With upper level privates costing >$40k and a little aid if you make over $100K a year the parents and kids are being rational using the state flagship as an economic choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly right! Even with schools costing 43,000,then giving out out 10,000 in merit aid, no finanial grants, increasing tuition every year---->it is too expensive for that family in a high cost of living area where gross income is 90,000-120,000.</p>

<p>Say that to Berkeley or UCLA lol.... asians coming in by the second</p>

<p>I think the article is regarding Asians as white.</p>

<p>I think the article is regarding Asians as white.</p>

<p>ahha wow... i dont think thats politically correctt</p>

<p>sorry then :( I didn't read the article</p>

<p>Just wondering....why was 1992 used as the base year?</p>

<p>5200 Univ of Washington students will attend tuition free next year. That is 20% of the student body. Unfortunately, room & board costs over $10,000 over that. Even with free tuition, it is still tough to make it for many.</p>

<p>"The report argues that financial aid practices at those and similar institutions create barriers for low-income and minority students"</p>

<p>actually the biggest barrier for such students is coming from homes where actually getting married first THEN having kids is usually considered a joke</p>

<p>Perhaps when 75% of these kids derive from families (e.g black communities) where the father's are hiding elsewhere and not taking responsiblity - might actually be a barrier to education and success in life</p>

<p>... however you won't see that discussed too often in USA TODAY which for years has been running a left wing agenda</p>

<p>however political correctness requires us to continue the (blame everyone else) charade - that there simply are no opportunities in America for some groups</p>

<p>
[quote]
...actually the biggest barrier for such students is coming from homes where actually getting married first THEN having kids...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unfortunately this does not at all address the problem raised in the actual report. In short, high achieving minority students are not attending the flagships, but tend to attend lower resourced universities, and are less likely to succeed.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When examined directly, the answer is clear. There is no way that achievement patterns in our high schools over the past two decades—which show vastly higher college prep course completion rates, stronger achievement in mathematics, and higher SAT and ACT scores for low-income and minority students—could possibly fully explain the poor and mostly worsening performance of our flagship universities. </p>

<p>Indeed, virtually every available source of data suggests that there are more students—especially low-income students—who could successfully do the work in these institutions if we only tried a little harder to get them in and through.</p>

<p>Why Are Low-income and Minority Students so Underrepresented at Flagship Universities? </p>

<p>When asked why their campuses enroll and graduate so few low-income students and students of color, presidents of flagship universities often point to quality problems in the nation’s high schools, especially those that serve significant concentrations of low-income and minority students. Like many presidents in other colleges, they would like Americans to believe that we have a high school problem, not a college problem. Obviously, they’re not all wrong. We do have important problems in our high schools. Most of them seriously shortchange poor and minority students and result in devastating outcomes for these groups. </p>

<p>Setting aside for the moment the question of whether higher education has any culpability for that sorry state of affairs, it is important to ask the bottom line question: Are the colleges right to think that it’s not really about them? In other words, do achievement patterns in our high schools entirely explain access and success patterns in our flagship institutions, or could these institutions be doing more to serve the full range of students in their states? When examined directly, the answer is clear. There is no way that achievement patterns in our high schools over the past two decades—which show vastly higher college prep course completion rates, stronger achievement in mathematics, and higher SAT and ACT scores for low-income and minority students—could possibly fully explain the poor and mostly worsening performance of our flagship
universities. Indeed, virtually every available source of data suggests that there are more students—especially low-income students—who could successfully do the work in these institutions if we only tried a little harder to get them in and through. Let’s take a look at what the data tell us. </p>

<p>The best data sources for understanding the post-secondary experiences of America’s high school
students is the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS). In general, analyses of these databases
show large differences in the college-entry rates of high-achieving students from various economic
backgrounds. </p>

<p>One such analysis, summarized in Table 1 below, found college-going rates among high-achieving, low-income high school graduates to be about the same as those among the lowest achieving students from high-income families. Indeed, almost one-quarter of the highest achieving students from low-income families had not entered any college at all within two years of graduating from high school.</p>

<p>A second, more nuanced analysis of the NELS database found a similar pattern, with significant numbers of high achieving low-income students not in college a full two years after graduating from high school. But these analysts also found something equally important: that the high-achieving, low-income students who did enter college were considerably more likely than other high achievers to begin in two-year colleges, a path far less likely to result in a baccalaureate degree.</p>

<p>It turns out, though, that this stratification process—whereby high-achieving, low-income students enter less selective colleges than their high income counterparts—involves more than them just resigning themselves to attending two-year colleges. </p>

<p>A special analysis of the NELS database for the Education Trust shows that even the low-income students in the highest “academic resource quintile” (high achievement plus completion of intense college prep curriculum and AP courses) who entered four-year colleges enrolled in institutions with less status and fewer resources.</p>

<p>By virtually any standard, these students’ academic credentials would warrant admission to most of the top universities in the country. Yet nearly three- quarters of our country’s best and brightest high school graduates from low-income families—those who fell in the top quintile of a rigorous academic index attended colleges to which they could have gained admission had they simply achieved at a mediocre level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not surprisingly the left cannot understand the connection between low achieving schools - and teachers (often desperately) dealing with waves of students from single parent families - THE TWO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION</p>

<p>Citation X, even if there is a correlation between single-parent families and low-achieving students (of which I'm still not convinced), you can't possibly say that single-parent families cause students to be low-achieving, so even if you somehow address single-parent families, there is no evidence that this would suddenly or even gradually bridge the gap between low-achieving and high achieving students. I think it's a mistake to blame single-parent families for low-achievement.</p>

<p>Gee, who would ever guess that massive illegitimacy for inner city minorities, typical approaching 70% - would ever impact educational achievement of such children?</p>

<p>Who needs fathers hanging around anyways?</p>