A Loan-Free Education

When I saw the title, "Financially Needy Students Welcome! (But Don't Let Them Know)," I knew I had to check it out as I researched a paper related to this topic back in 2008. I was not at all surprised that the author was Laura Perna, whose research I am familiar with (and I'm positive I cited her in that paper I wrote in 2008). Anyhow, the gist of the article is that it is possible for low-income minority students to get free educations from elite institutions.

I remember that back in 2007-2008 there was a flurry of publicity in the Chronicle (and elsewhere) about all these universities that would guarantee families making less than a certain amount of money a loan-free education. What was impressive to me was that they weren't just for students that would typically be classified as needy - many colleges (Dartmouth, Cornell, Stanford, etc.) were providing loan-free education for students whose families made less than $100,000, which I thought was a pretty high ceiling for such an offer. -I wonder if this is still the case after the economic downturn.

What are my thoughts? I thought you'd never ask.

In the article, Perna mentions that these elite universities have only about 10% of the student populations are from families that make less than $35,000 a year. In questioning why this is the case, she points to the fact that this information is not really available public knowledge on their website, but rather, something that was announced for the sake of publicity at some point in time. Thus, providing loan-free education to students with great financial need really isn't a priority for the university so much as the institution wanting 1) the publicity for providing the opportunity and 2) to be able to "keep up with the Joneses."

Though I do agree that academically competitive students whose families make less than $35,000 a year face many challenges that likely prevent them from applying Ivy League schools, I don't think the lack of information is the largest problem. If elite universities want students from any particular population, they can get them. I think the problem is that these institutions don't want to admit more than 10% of students from this socioeconomic group. If you are working hard to recruit students to keep your university at #1 or #2, you want to continue your legacy, maintain legacy connections, and keep the money coming in. Though I'm sure the Ivy's were hurt the least due to the economic downturn, they were still hurt, and as mentioned in one of our texts, there is no such thing as an excess of money in higher education. -Now I'm not saying I agree that universities should allow only 10% of students from the lowest socioeconomic quintile in...I'm just saying that 10% seems to be the magic number these universities are happy to maintain. Perhaps it's enough diversity to be diverse in a socioeconomic sense, and enough for the administration and trustees to feel they are doing something good for society.

Though I agree that low-income students likely don't consider private institutions in general due to a lack of knowledge about financial aid (an only an awareness about sticker prices), there are more reasons these students don't consider elite institutions, like:
1) Location - low-income students (particularly minority) students are more likely to want to go to school close to home, sometimes for cultural reasons, but often because they think the only way to afford college is to live at home while commuting to school.
2) Logic - low-income students just figure they won't get into the Ivy League schools and take advantage of options at state schools (particularly their local state school) that provide full scholarships.
3) Academics - low-income students often go to public schools that just don't provide the kind of college prep education necessary toget them into elite institutions. This includes fewer AP options, lower standardized test scores, and an overall lack of college counseling. Low-income students that are at the top of their classes at low-income public schools still don't compare to students attending private prep schools.

So who is at fault? What is the problem? Clearly, there are many problems. I think some of it comes down to the public K-12 education system that isn't able to provide the best education for their students. Some of it is that these elite institutions are not only incredibly selective due to the large volume of applications they receive), but are selective due to the fact that they only select a small portion of students that have not grown up privileged. I also think that while administrators at these institutions do not ever say it, they are private institutions and truly are not obligated to admit low-income students and give them (essentially) full-rides.

I think that elite institutions do have a responsibility to admit low-income students (even though they technically don't have to) and that socioeconomic diversity is just as important as racial/ethnic diversity. I also hope that high-achieving, low-income students become aware of these opportunities and try for them, because a full-ride to Stanford would be more enriching on so many levels than a Regent's Scholarship at UH.