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.

How Cool!

Watching Rachel Maddow tonight I found out about something so completely and entirely awesome....the Occupy Wall Street Library! Sadly, when Bloomberg had Zuccotti Square evacuated, the library was taken (though some books are apparently being stored safely). This wasn't just a little library. There were over 5,000 volumes set up, and volunteer librarians cataloged them all! OWS considered their library to be "public," so in addition to the OWS folks, anyone who wanted to borrow a book could do so - some of whom were parents and children who lived in areas with underfunded/poor libraries.

Here's some info about the library! Click me!

Want to search the catalog? Go here

When I finish my thesis, I'm going to start into my library and maybe I'll even catalog it!

It Always Comes Down to Politics.....

I've been known to make arguments that almost any opinion about education (what to teach, who should teach, who should learn, where should the learn, how much does it cost to learn, etc.) comes down to political ideology. Is higher education a right or a privilege? Who should pay for education? --I think it comes down to politics. So what exactly do these people say? I thought you'd never ask. Here is my summary of what some politicians believe or are trying to achieve:

1) Ron Paul, 2012 GOP Primary Candidate seems to think that higher education is a waste of money, that federal aid for higher education is failing, and he recommends cutting one trillion dollars from the federal budget, including education. He also mentioned that if he were president, he would cut federal loans entirely. I think it's interesting that Ron Paul sees the problem that students are one trillion dollars in debt (college loan debt), and decides the solution is to cut that amount of money from the federal budget. Hrmmm...so who exactly are you trying to help here? It's not those students who are the 99% that are suffering in debt, and it's not the students that actually need the aid for college. This is what I call a logic fail.

2) Herman Cain, 2012 GOP Primary Candidate thinks that aid for college should come from the state government and from communities, not from the federal government. It's interesting that he recommends that students who cannot afford institutions with high sticker prices should make "different choices as to the schools they go to," and says, "they might have to work a little harder." First of all, these students oftentimes DO choose community colleges and they still need that federal aid...and in my opinion, these students should be given more options other than just community colleges! Second, most of them are working harder - working part-time or even full-time and may even be supporting families. This, of course, means that they have less time to devote to their education - an education that they were already disadvantaged to from the beginning! Lastly, where exactly are the states and "communities" getting all this money from?

3) President Barack Obama has made a plan to lower interest rates for students who consolidate under the government's Direct Loan program, and will allow low-income earners a reduction in their payments. While I do see both of these opportunities to be good things, I just don't think they are enough. I do not think it is realistic to demand the government do a college loan bail-out, I kind of think the people are owed this since the government bailed out the banks! Surely if you can bail out the banks you can bail out your own citizens! No? I think these options are steps in the right direction, but there needs to be more done. I really hope this wasn't just a small something Obama could do to gain votes from people...I hope this is a sign that the current administration is aware of the problem of college debt and that even more options will be forthcoming. Here's to hope.

College Giving

So, according to this article, there's good news and bad news with regards to college/university giving. The good news is that according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 25% of organizations on the "Philanthropy 400" list this year were institutions of higher education. (The "Philanthropy 400" is apparently a list of the 400 organizations that raise the most money...I had to look that one up.) So, the good news is that the top 400 organizations received an increase of 3.5% overall compared to 2010...and while this is nothing compared to what they were receiving prior to the recession, at least the earnings seemed to have increased.

Unfortunately (from my perspective, at least), the organizations that top the list are institutions that likely do not have the kind of need for giving the way other many other institutions do. (At the top of the list are Stanford, Harvard, Amherst and Johns Hopkins.) While giving for these institutions may have increased (for Amherst significantly so!), I'm guessing that there are other institutions out there that were previously dependent on alumni giving that are suffering because they are not able to generate the kind of revenue they were able to generate prior to the economic downturn.

I wish I could see the full list, but I do not have a subscription to The Chronicle of Philanthropy...it would be interesting to see the types of institutions on this list. I would bet that many of them are institutions that are considered by USNWR to be "the best" institutions. Still, I'm sure if you asked any of these institutions on this list, they would all say they still need more. Institutional endowments across the nation took a hit in 2009, and I think that an article we read in class this semester is correct in that there will always be a need for more money (even in more economically prosperous times), and that will always be able to be put to use. There is no such thing for an institution to receive too much money.....

Liberal Arts Colleges in the Current Economy

I thought this was a great article, and though it may not be the most concerning topic to most people within the field of higher education, I was definitely interested in it because I graduated from a women's liberal arts college and did my budget narrative on a liberal arts college!

Basically, the article discusses Smith College and their "Future Initiative" plan that you can find here. Like Mount Holyoke College, Smith is an undergraduate liberal arts college for women, and they're located roughly 20 minutes north of MHC. Smith has a larger endowment than MHC and is more well known than MHC (at least on the western side of the country), but what concerns Smith tends to concern MHC as we are similar institutions with similar priorities.

Like one of MHC's strategic planning reports, Smith's "Future Initiative" discusses the fact that the current model (both educational and financial) are not sustainable. (Though I would argue the reason the educational model isn't sustainable is only because it is financially unsustainable.) Liberal arts colleges, even those with endowments like Smith and MHC should be concerned about their futures because large changes (such as adding programs that may be less competitive but will being in money, or adding online instruction) could change the mission of the institution, even if they can bring in money. These colleges need to think through their plans with their communities (including alumnae and students) to determine their courses of action.

I remember when I was at MHC I was concerned about the move towards centralized dining. While dining is not completely centralized, something does change about the feeling of community when you can't just roll out of bed in your pajamas and get a hot breakfast in your residence hall. Clearly, this is something one may not see as a big deal, but these are the small changes that may become large changes in the future.

Small classes taught by professors (who make good money!) are also a hallmark of the liberal arts experience, but the fact that these instructors receive only a small fraction of research grants and contracts that research institutions do is almost like a financial double-whammy. While technology plays an increasing role in college life, how should professors incorporate technology into learning? Should there be classes held online? While I can understand students at large universities taking an occasional online class, I can't even imagine taking an online class at an institution like MHC unless it were taught by a distinguished professor that is physically in a different location...and even then, I would probably argue that the students should meet together in person in a classroom while the instructor was broadcast into the classroom.

I clearly don't have the answers, but a liberal arts education means something, and I am concerned that many options to increase revenue may detract from the missions of these institutions. Of course, in this economy, I am sure we will hit a point where we no longer have a choice...and it is definitely a good idea to try to brainstorm ideas now, before it's too late.

Affordable Excellence

I thought this article was interesting, as it is about financial aid (need vs. merit) at a public liberal arts college that is competitive with both public institutions and liberal arts colleges. The main gist of this article is that St. Mary's College of Maryland will be getting a new VP and Dean of Admissions & Financial Aid, Patricia Goldsmith, and the goal of the institution is to increase both access and excellence.

While this article is specifically about this institution, I think almost every institution would say that they would like to be able to increase access and excellence, but the question is "How?" In the article, the author discusses institutions that have opted to be "need blind" as well as institutions that will give merit grants to all students that meet certain academic criteria (though critics argue this is what institutions were doing all along anyway). I have a hard time understanding how a public "honors" college that really has that private liberal arts college feel can exist and continue to be affordable. With a student:teacher ratio that rivals many private liberal arts colleges, and an almost completely residential community (90% of students live on campus), the faculty and staff salaries (especially if there is staff tenure in this state) as well as the maintenance of the campus must be very expensive!

At least tuition and fees for St. Mary's College seems to be a "good deal" (relatively, of course) at $14,400 a year for residents, though non-resident tuition is significantly higher at $26,500 a year. I think that going forward, St. Mary's needs to find a way to figure out the direction they want to head in and try to stay true to their mission. Since they are an "honors," college, academics should be their main focus, but as a public institution, their next priority should be accessibility for in-state students. Though I understand the need to use tuition discounting and that there is a benefit to having students from various geographic locations, I think this institution needs maintain its accessibility particularly for in-state students, particularly those with high levels of financial need.

"Republicans Push Pell Changes"

According to this article, House Republicans proposed to maintain the dollar amount of the maximum Pell Grant at $5,550 but make several other cuts in the program, including the following:

• Students attending at a less than half-time status will no longer be eligible for grants
• Students can receive the grant for only 12 semesters (down from 18 semesters)
• Students eligible for less than 10 percent of the maximum grant would receive nothing
• Programs for colleges serving significant numbers of black students, Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Americans (as well as tribal colleges) would be eliminated
• The budget for Hispanic serving institutions would be cut by 83%
• The budget for HBCU's would be cut by 36%

My thoughts?

Well, let me start by saying that I'm completely biased because if balancing the budget were my job, I'd do my best not to meddle with education (other than to improve it)...HOWEVER, if I were required to make cuts to Pell Grants, I would not make the above changes. Who do these proposed changes hurt the most? The students that need the aid the most, of course.

Historically underserved minorities are the students that tend to live at the lowest levels of socioeconomic spectrum. These students are also more likely to need to work while in school (and may perhaps register for fewer credits), and may take longer to graduate whether it is because they began their academic journey at a community college or because they need to work while in school. I think for many of these students, completing a degree in 6 years may be unrealistic. I can definitely see students within the UH system suffering if these changes were made.

As we have recently read in class, while the focus of early efforts to increase higher education access was for those who had the greatest need, the fact that many of these programs have expanded to include the middle-class may be (particularly in this case) hurting the students that need the aid the most.

I am not sure exactly what the income cut-off is for receiving a Pell Grant, however, perhaps this cut-off could be lowered somewhat so students in the upper middle-class would only be eligible for grants while only the lower class and lower middle-class would still be eligible for Pell Grants. --Just a thought.