Reinforcing Stratification in American Higher Education: Some Disturbing Trends (original) (raw)
Related papers
1994
This study used data on the distribution of college students by income background to analyze college choice, particularly examining how family income and college choice correlations have changed over time. 'The study, using data from the national American Freshmen Survey, compared results from 1993 and computed their constant dollar equivalents in two previous years, 1989 and 1980. Data were analyzed to examine the distribution of students in a particular income group across institutional types and to examine the income distribution of students attending a particular type of institution. Results showed that, while the share of middle income students in all of higher education declined, in 1980 21.5 percent of middl, income students were enrolled at private, four-year colleges and universities and in 1993, 21.2 percent were in those institutions. Low income students were increasingly represented at public two-year colleges, while representations of middle and upper income students in these colleges declined. Also the number of middle income students at public two-year institutions has declined and the number at public four-year institutions has increased. Private four-year colleges have been enrolling a declining share of uppe: income students, and public colleges' share of wealthier students has increased. Thus private colleges have a steady proportion of middle income students but a decline in upper income students. (JB)
Access to College: The Role of Family Income
Higher Education Extension Service Review, 1993
This newsletter issue focuses on the roles played by higher education finance and student financial aid in ensuring broad access to higher education. Specifically, the report discusses trends in family income and college costs that affect the need for student aid. The report finds that income remains a primary determinant of students' educational opportunities. Students from higher income families enroll in college at rates three to four times greater than students from lower income families. Government student aid programs have not successfully overcome financial barriers to college and significantly increased the college enrollment rates of students from lower income families. Colleges themselves, through institutionally funded grants, provide an important part of the access currently available to low-income students. College is becoming less and less affordable for lower income and middle income families. Because a high and increasing proportion of all American children are in lower income families, their access to college is likely to erode unless action is taken. Overcoming the financial barriers to college will require increasing amounts of student aid and guidelines that carefully target aid to the neediest students. Seventeen graphs present college-going rates by family income, percent of young adults enrolled in college, and trends in college costs. (JDD)
Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2016
In an era of significant disinvestment in public higher education by state governments, many public universities are moving toward a "progressive tuition model" that attempts to invest approximately one-third of tuition income into institutional financial aid for lower-income and middle-class students. The objective is to mitigate the cost of tuition and keep college affordable. But is this model as currently formulated working? What levels of financial stress are students of all income groups experiencing? And are they changing their behaviors? Utilizing data from the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Survey of undergraduates and other data sources, this study explores these issues by focusing on students at the University of California and ten AAU institutions that are members of the SERU Consortium. At least to date, the increase in tuition, and costs related to housing and other living expenses, have not had a negative impact on the number of lower-income students attending UC. Reflecting to some degree UC's robust financial aid policies, and perhaps the growing number of lower-income families in California, there has been an actual increase in their number and as a percentage of total enrollment-a counterintuitive finding to the general perception that higher tuition equals less access to the economically vulnerable. At the same time, there is evidence of a "middle-class" squeeze, with a marginal drop in the number of students from this economic class. Students' concerns for paying for higher education and accumulated student debt in the 2014 SERU are predictably higher among lowerincome students, yet upper-middle income students (with annual family incomes from $80-125,000) are the least likely to agree that the cost of attendance is manageable. With these and other nuances and caveats briefly discussed in this study, the progressive tuition model appears to be working in terms of affordability and with only moderate indicators of increased financial stress and changed student behaviors. These results are not necessarily predictive of the future if tuition rates go up further. But they do indicate the higher tuition rates at highly selective public universities, if accompanied by robust federal, state and institutional financial aid, may be the best path for maintaining access to lower-income students, and for generating income needed for institutions to maintain or improve student-to-faculty ratios and other markers of quality. Freezing tuition, as currently demanded by state lawmakers in California, does not appear to be based on any clear analysis of the correlation of tuition and affordability. It appears more as a politically attractive way to appeal to voters while ignoring the financial consequences for public colleges and universities and the quality of the student experience.
Commentary: How Should Higher Education Be Financed?
1970
This paper is a criticism of "Finance and the Aims of American Higher Education" by Howard R. Bowen (HE001412). VeEring toward "free education" is inconsistent with ordinary notions of equity beCause: (1) the purely private benefits of higher education accruing directly to the individual are s,ub.s;tantially greater than all costs incurred, and (2) individuals who attend college, as a group, ccme disproportionally from upper income families. A policy of high tuition, even higher than actual costs, for those who can afford it and substantial aid to those who can't would be more equitable. A.l ow tuition policy may also adversely affect an institution's ability to maintain academic freedom and determine its own programs, because of its increasing dependence on the action of legislators. Pressures on governmental budgets are increasing at all levels and there is little likelihood that there will be a substantial increase in governmental support. Income from tuition will be essential to cover widening educational opportunities and instructional costs which, otherwise, will continue to exclude many individuals with real economic need from higher education. High tuition and high student aid are complementary. (AF)
Subsidies, Costs, Tuition, and Aid in US Higher Education: 1986-87 to 1993-94
1997
Data from a panel of 2,269 colleges and universities track the major changes in educational costs, prices, subsidies, and financial aid over the seven eventful years from 1986-87 to 1993-94. The ability to give student subsidies is recognized as a central determinant of an institution's economic circumstances and strategy. Subsidy resources allow a school to sell its educational services at a net price below the costs of their production. So prices are always less than costs --how much less depends on a school's resources.
Private and Public Contributions to Financing College Education
2004
Note Numbers in the text and tables may not add up to totals because of rounding. Preface Ov er the past decade, the growth in the number of students attending college and sharp rises in college costs have led the Congress to supplement the financial aid provided by states, institutions, and employers. That increased federal assistance to students and their parents has taken a variety of forms, including expansion of the student loan program (to make federal loans available to middle-income families), reductions in interest rates on loans, increases in the maximum amount available in the Pell Grant program, creation of the Hope and Lifetime Learning education tax credits, and expansion of tax-advantaged vehicles for education savings. This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) paper—prepared at the request of the Senate Budget Committee—estimates how much students and families paid in college costs in the 1999-2000 academic year after accounting for all of that aid. Because a primary pu...