Socioeconomic Diversity at Top Colleges and Universities

So, in this article, the author Catharine Hill (President of Vassar College) argues that selective institutions should increase their socioeconomic diversity to have more than 10% of the student body from the bottom 40% of the income distribution. Okay, that sound good to me. How does she recommend colleges do this? By having the U.S. News and World Report include socioeconomic diversity in their rankings. My feelings about this are somewhat mixed, so let me explain why.....

First, I think that it's important to note that the colleges and universities that Hill is talking about are the top institutions in the nation that have likely suffered the least in the economic downturn. These institutions are need-blind and already provide great financial aid packages to the students that do attend, in some cases, eliminating loan aid from financial aid packages entirely.

When students from low SES groups attend these universities, I am going to bet that these students are academically prepared for these institutions, and will typically graduate within 4-years at these schools (which is common). When the culture of an institution is to prioritize academics and graduate within four years, I'm sure the students from the lowest SES groups do the same, perhaps with even more focus because they are aware of the wonderful and rare opportunity they've received.

I also agree that it would be great if more students from the lowest SES groups could attend these "elite" institutions of higher education. I've always believed that SES was a greater divider than race and ethnicity, and that "elite" institutions should recruit these students and provide better academic options for them.

Unfortunately, while changing the criteria in the USNWR may lead to the results Hill is talking about for these elite institutions, I'm not sure whether the overall result will benefit students from low-SES groups on the whole. Let me explain. Schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Amherst will always find their way to the top of the rankings one way or another, particularly because of their reputations. What about institutions that are ranked much lower but build their strategic plans around improving in the rankings? I can't remember many off the top of my head, but Baylor is an example. Their strategic plan, "Baylor 2012" included goals that directly mimic USNWR's criteria and they had spent well over $200 million by 2007! My concern is that schools that aren't in the "elite" tier may admit students from low SES groups just to move up in the rankings without considering the ramifications. Are these students actually academically qualified? Will they succeed? Does the academic culture of the institution encourage students to prioritize academics? What is the graduation rate?

I think there are already many institutions in the country that are not "elite" that already are working very hard to try to serve students from low SES backgrounds (i.e. community colleges). I think that elite colleges should work hard to recruit more qualified students from lower SES backgrounds. I am concerned, however, that institutions may end up admitting these students just to try to move up (or just to keep up) with USNWR rankings and may not have the support these students need. While admitting students from low SES backgrounds should be a priority for all schools (particularly elite institutions), I think that actually graduating these students should be a bigger priority.