ILR Impact Brief - College Tuition Creeps Ever Higher — Here’s Why

[Excerpt] A variety of factors are responsible for the rapidly escalating costs of undergraduate education in the United States. Concern about quality — of students, faculty, course offerings, physical plant, and image — militates against a focus on efficiency and productivity at the selective private colleges and universities; a perception among students and families that price signals quality gives the less selective privates cover to keep raising rates. Public colleges and universities, where relatively higher increases have been recorded, continue to grapple with diminishing state appropriations as a share of their budgets

Minority Enrollments at Public Universities of Diverse Selectivity Levels under Different Admission Regimes: The Case of Texas

This study describes how minority enrollment probabilities respond to changes in admission policies from affirmative-action to merit-only programs and then to percentage plans when the demographic composition of the potential pool of applicants is also shifting. It takes advantage of admission policy changes that occurred in the state of Texas with the Hopwood and HB588 decisions and of a unique administrative dataset that includes applications, admissions, and enrollments for three public universities of different selectivity levels. The findings suggest that the elimination of affirmative action and the introduction of the Top 10% plan had differential effects on minority enrollment probabilities as well as on application behavior depending on the selectivity level of the postsecondary institution. In particular, Hopwood is related to shifts in minority enrollments from selective institutions to less selective ones as the cascading hypothesis predicts. And although the Top 10% plan seems to have helped increased minority enrollment probabilities at the selective college as the upgrading hypothesis predicts, once the increases in minority shares among high-school graduates are taken into account, we find that the Top 10% plan can no longer be related to improvements in minority representation at selective universities.

Can’t Get Here from There: The Decision to Apply to a Selective Institution

Students from low-income families are greatly underrepresented at selective colleges and universities in the United States. In an attempt to increase applications from low-income students, some institutions have developed programs involving increased recruitment of and more attractive financial aid packages for students from low-income families. However, relatively little research has looked at the factors that are important in the college application decision-making process, and in particular how the importance of some factors may be different for low-income students. This paper uses data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1997 cohort to analyze the factors influencing students\u27 college application decisions, with a focus on the decision to apply to a selective four-year institution. We analyze how the influence of distance from a student’s home during high school to a selective college or university and average tuition levels at selective institutions located nearby vary with the a student’s family income. Our results show that the further a student lives from a selective college, the less likely they are to apply to one, and this effect seems to be stronger than that of average tuition levels in the student’s state. Although the effect of distance does not differ for low-income students, they are most heavily impacted due to the geographic mismatch of low-income students and selective institutions. Personal, family (in particular, parent’s education) and high school characteristics also prove to be very influential when students are deciding whether or not to apply to a selective institution

State University No More: Out-of-State Enrollment and the Growing Exclusion of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students at Public Flagship Universities

State flagship universities are facing an identity crisis. Will they continue a historic dedication to economic equity, or will they become instruments of social stratification?Although the admissions practices of private selective colleges are frequently featured in media coverage, public flagship universities enroll seven times as many Pell Grant recipients. However, these "engines of social mobility" are increasingly crowding out high-achieving, low-income students.The Great Recession brought dramatic cuts to higher education appropriations and in response, flagship universities are enrolling more out-of-state students. These students offset university budgets by paying higher tuition but often, they demonstrate lower academic achievement and higher participation in partying

Racial segregation patterns in selective universities

This paper examines sorting into interracial friendships at selective universities. We show significant friendship segregation, particularly for blacks. Indeed, blacks’ friendships are no more diverse in college than in high school, despite the fact that the colleges that blacks attend have substantially smaller black populations. We demonstrate that the segregation patterns occur in part because affirmative action results in large differences in the academic backgrounds of students of different races, with students preferring to form friendships with those of similar academic backgrounds. Within a school, stronger academic backgrounds make whites’ friendships with blacks less likely and friendships with Asians more likely. These results suggest that affirmative action admission policies at selective universities, which drive a wedge between the academic characteristics of different racial groups, may result in increased within-school segregation

The official discourse of fair access to higher education [article]

Despite significant public investment in the sector, selective universities in the UK have made little if any progress in widening participation over the last ten years. There are also increasing incentives for universities to become more selective in the context of government-driven higher education market competition. At the same time, while some universities may view the pursuit of academic excellence as incompatible with widening participation, key policy documents have consistently included descriptions of a variety of strategies designed to promote wider and fairer access. This paper is concerned with how the idea of fair access has been constructed within official higher education discourse. A method of ‘constructive description’ is employed to analyse the discursive strategies at play within selected governmental texts. The analysis indicates that the primacy of institutional autonomy in the official discourse of fair access operates to exclude descriptions of a ‘common currency’ of merit and potential, which may leave potentially unfair admissions practices unchallenged. The paper proposes a change in ‘mind set’ from universities operating as exclusive ‘gate keepers’ admitting students, to that of the inclusive recognition of applicants’ merit and potential. This may have significant implications for admissions policy, particularly in the light of the shift away from traditional models of funding towards empowering individual or employer ‘buyers’ in the higher education market.