“All we want are the facts,
ma’am.” Jack Webb, from the television series, Dragnet (1951-1959)
If it were
a matter of the facts alone, the right-wing attack on higher education would be
unintelligible. From the attacks, one might think that the college scene is
hugely skewed in favor of the underrepresented students towards whom diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are directed. Yet, a quick glance at census
data (Chart 1) shows that collegiate admissions fairly accurately reflect the
diversity that marks the population as a whole.
DEI initiatives are focused on the racial and ethnic differentials that have characterized the admission, retention, and graduation of college students, as defined by the broad demographic categories used in government publications and legislation. While initial enrollment rates have narrowed, they are still considerable gaps between groups, especially when the performance of Asian students are part of the comparison. Whites, Blacks (African Americans), and Hispanics (Latinx) lag some 20-25 percent behind. Larger disparities also define retention and graduation rates, over which colleges and universities seemingly have greater impact.
[1] DEI initiatives are aimed at these interlocking factors.
Noteworthy in the data about higher
education is the dramatic falloff in White participation. Whites are the only
demographic group whose participation in higher education is less than their proportion
in the general population, while every other group has either held their own or
increased their collegiate participation beyond their presence within the
general population.
The situation facing Whites has
been interpreted in two broad and seemingly contradictory manners. In one, Whites,
especially from the working class, are mired in a deep crisis that manifests in
a decline in longevity, catastrophic rates of drug (fentanyl) and alcohol
addiction, a paranoid perception of reality that leads to high rates of gun
ownership, and a propensity to adopt outlandish theories regarding political
behavior.
The other interpretation views
Whites as a group that can heavily rely on kinship and friendship networks,
neighborhood contacts, and their identity as Whites as means to procure jobs,
thus obviating the need for a collegiate education as a pathway to employment.
It is also possible that these two interpretations are flipsides of the same
phenomenon, of a working class that is both relatively favored (privileged)
vis-à-vis underrepresented minorities and deeply depressed regarding its
present and future possibilities.
In hindsight, the fault of DEI
programs is not their attention to African American and Latinx students, but
their failure to include White students in their initiatives. Nonetheless, this
limitation does not affirm the right-wing criticisms. Genuine concern would
call not for the dismantling of DEI initiates, but for extra funding and a
broadened scope. Instead, for the right, it is the group with the lowest rate
of participation in higher education that becomes the vantage point for viewing
the achievements of everyone else.CHART 1 – RACIAL & ETHNICITY DIVERSITY[2]
|
(in percents)
|
Higher Education
|
US Population
|
|
Asian
|
8
|
6
|
|
Black (African American)
|
13
|
13
|
|
Hispanic (Latinx)
|
22
|
19
|
|
White
|
52
|
59
|
|
Two or More Races (Multiracial)
|
4
|
2
|
The right-wing has focused on state universities because of their use of government funds. Less obvious is the attention paid to the privately-governed and privately-endowed top-tier schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (HYP). In 2022, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton each limited their admissions to 2, 3, and 6 percent of their respective applicant pools, a level of selectivity found among other top-tier institutions as well. Considering that one-quarter of 4-year baccalaureate institutions abide by ‘open admissions’ policies, through which any applicant who satisfies the minimum entrance requirements and can afford the tuition and fees is admitted, and that only 10 percent of institutions accept less than half of their applicants, this indeed is a rarified situation.
[3]
Each of
these three institutions is characterized by a similar student demographic profile:
CHART 2 – RACE AND ETHNICITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS[4]
|
(in percents)
|
Harvard
|
Yale
|
Princeton
|
|
Asian
|
21
|
22
|
24
|
|
Black
|
9
|
8
|
8
|
|
Hispanic
|
12
|
15
|
10
|
|
White
|
35
|
35
|
38
|
|
Non-Resident Alien (International)
|
13
|
10
|
12
|
|
Two or More Races
|
7
|
7
|
7
|
Of upmost importance in terms of diversity is that no single
group at any of the three institutions dominates demographically, a circumstance
true at other top-tier institutions as well. When on campus, everyone belongs
to a minority. Top-tier institutions now mirror the situation that developed at
urban public institutions a quarter of a century ago. While whites remain the
largest group, they no longer form the majority of the student population.
The top-tier colleges have embarked
on a huge endeavor to integrate and diversify the top tiers of American society,
insofar as their graduates are destined for lofty careers in business,
government, the professions, academe, and in the non-profit sector. But despite
the diversity at these institutions, traditionally underrepresented
groups—specifically, Blacks and Hispanics—remain underrepresented. Diversity
has not benefitted them in such a fashion that they attend top-tier colleges in
numbers that reflect their overall participation in higher education or their
presence in the population at large (Charts 1 and 2).
Alongside the underrepresentation
of Blacks and Hispanics comes the underrepresentation of Whites. The group with
the highest rates of college enrollment are Asians, yet they have not been a essential
component of DEI efforts. Rather, it has been the stagnating middle that has
been its focus.
Socioeconomic
diversity is another area to which top-tier institutions have turned their
attention, a development that began in earnest around the start of this
century. In higher education, socioeconomic diversity is typically measured by
the percent of students who receive Pell grants, the federally-funded awards that
are based on a student’s family income. Complicated formulas determine who is
eligible and the size of the award, but roughly, a family of three whose total
income is less than $50,000 qualifies for the maximum.
Regardless of the details, the
percent of a student body that receives Pell grants gives some measure of its
socioeconomic diversity, that is, the degree to which an institution recruits
its students from the bottom income tiers of society. In rough terms, it is a measure
of an institution’s appeal to applicants from working- and lower-middle class
backgrounds, groups for whom access to top-tier institutions has been extremely
limited.
At HYP, nearly one in five students
are drawn from these two strata. This remarkable transformation has been made
possible by the extensive endowments (in the billions of dollars) at each of
the institutions:
CHART 3 – SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY AT TOP-TIER INSTITUTIONS[5]
|
(in
percents)
|
Harvard
|
Yale
|
Princeton
|
|
Socioeconomic
Diversity
|
16
|
19
|
20
|
In terms of class, race, and ethnicity as a composite, these
institutions have achieved a level of diversity that few other institutions of
higher education in the US have been able to match. In this broad sense, the
top-tier institutions are the model for DEI initiatives across higher education
and also the target for criticisms of those initiatives.
It is
cheaper for all students, except for the wealthiest, to attend schools such as
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton than to attend nearby publicly-funded flagship
institutions. For a family with an annual income under $30,000, the
out-of-pocket contribution (costs minus grants) calculates to $5,900. Were that
same student to attend the flagship public university in Massachusetts, UMass-Amherst,
the out-of-pocket contribution would be $10,858. Analogous calculations are
possible for all income groups except for the very highest. Only top-earning
families face a situation where it is cheaper to attend a public flagship than a
private top-tier institution:
CHART 4 - ANNUAL NET COST OF ATTENDANCE[6]
|
(family income)
|
Harvard
|
UMass-Amherst
|
|
Less than $30,000
|
$5,900
|
$10,858
|
|
$30,001 - $48,000
|
$3,002
|
$11,824
|
|
$48,001 - $75,000
|
$4,180
|
$15,768
|
|
$75,001 - $110,000
|
$17,037
|
$22,651
|
|
Over $110,001
|
$54,634
|
$29,809
|
Similar juxtapositions are possible for Yale and the
University of Connecticut-Storrs, Princeton and nearby Rutgers-New Brunswick,
and all other top-tier institutions in comparison to the flagship public
universities in their respective states.
Yet, as diverse
as the top-tier institutions are, they still lag higher education in general,
where nearly one in three (30 percent) receive an income-based federal (Pell) grant.
As with elsewhere in higher education, the ability-to-pay remains a primary
consideration of the admissions process.
The next
developments within higher education are far from clear, if only because the
global situation in which it is embedded is undergoing a rapid and thoroughgoing
transformation. It is hard to imagine that colleges and universities will be
able to move beyond the levels of diversity they have achieved so far. Not even
the wealthiest of collegiate institutions have been able to assemble student
bodies that faithfully reflect the diversity of the population.
Collegiate enrollments have
stagnated for over a decade already, and all collegiate enterprises—except for
the wealthy, top-tier institutions—are scrambling to shore up their financing. Government
largesse, during an era in which any large increase in public spending threatens
to re-inflate the economy, is not to be expected, no matter who is in control.
The liberal agenda is stalled and in
any case aims to maintain the status quo of the recent past, no matter how
inadequate it has been. The right-wing agenda is focused on budget cuts as a
means to reduce taxes, primarily for people who already squander their money in
speculative investments and junkets into outer space. Perhaps the right-wing attack
on higher education is best understood in this light, not according to the
facts but as an off-kilter means to cut government spending and also undermine any
commitment to social goals that might get in the way. Neither liberal society nor
its right-wing corollary has a vision of a better future.
[1] Jennifer Ma and Matea Pender, “Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society,” College Board,
Education Pays 2023, Figures 1.1B, 1.6A; A. Gardner, A., “Persistence and Retention: Fall 2020 Beginning Postsecondary Student Cohort,” June 2022, National Student Clearinghouse Research Center,
PersistenceRetention2022.pdf, Figure 2a.
[2] National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2023,
Digest of Education Statistics-Most Current Digest Tables, Tables 101.20, 306.10.
[3] National Center for Education Statistics. “Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions,” August 2023,
Characteristics of Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions.
[4] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024,
College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Race/Ethnicity.
[5] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024,
College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Campus Diversity, Socio-Economic Diversity.
[6] US Department of Education, 10 October 2024,
College Scorecard. For each institution, see the listings under Cost, Average Annual Cost.
