We’ve known for decades that the wealthy had an advantage in enrolling at the most selective colleges and universities in the country, given the way these institutions make admissions decisions. This includes how they define and measure merit, including through standardized test scores, teacher recommendations, and excellence in extracurricular activities, all positively correlated with income and wealth.
Affirmative action for underrepresented minorities and a “thumb on the scale” for lower-income and first-generation students were designed to compensate. Recent research details that these attempts to level the playing field haven’t worked. The rich still have disproportionate access to these limited seats, limiting their contributions to social and economic mobility.
In response to this research and the Supreme Court decision banning race-conscious admissions, the focus is turning to legacy admissions on the grounds that it privileges those who are already privileged. Institutions that have practiced legacy admissions have presumably done so because they believe it benefits their institution in some way.
Harvard will have the opportunity to make this case to the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education in the near future, unless it preemptively eliminates legacy admissions as others have done. Importantly, it is assumed that eliminating the practice will address the concerns that these schools disproportionately serve the rich. But that assumption doesn’t hold water.
The closest substitute for a legacy applicant is another high-income student with similar academic and nonacademic accomplishments but whose parents went to some other college or university. While this may be fairer for some upper-middle-income students or lower-upper-income students, it is not likely to have much impact on the unequal access on the part of lower- and true middle-income students, including students of color, to these selective institutions.
Some have argued that being “need-blind” in the admissions process is the problem, preventing schools from taking the lower-income status of students into account, along with all the disadvantages that creates. But this is actually a misinterpretation of the term, since schools have interpreted it as allowing a “thumb on the scale” for lower-income students. The “thumb” just hasn’t been heavy enough to counter the advantages of the wealthy in the admissions process.
While being need-blind isn’t a problem, being “need-aware” — rejecting applicants based on their financial need — surely is. This practice is not getting enough attention in debates about the end of race-conscious admissions and the advantages of the rich at selective institutions.
Many selective institutions are need-aware, either in the regular admissions cycle or when making decisions about waitlisted or transfer students. This means that they reject students with financial need.
The disparate reaction to legacy admissions and need-aware policies is a bit puzzling. Why is it unacceptable to admit legacies but not problematic to reject students because they are poor?
Both policies have an impact on the amount of resources an institution has to allocate to need-based financial aid. More legacies and fewer low-income students means spending less on financial aid. That means more resources can be spent on other things, such as faculty, great food options and luxe housing. Colleges and universities that adopt these policies are making the decision that these other things are more important than need-based financial aid. That is the decision that deserves attention.
We clearly have a system of allocating scarce seats at selective schools that no longer is considered fair by much of the public, on both sides of the political aisle. Affirmative action, legacy admissions, athletic preferences, reliance on standardized test scores and teacher references have all been considered unfair by various groups. This risks support for higher education, including financial support through taxpayers and federal and state governments, as well as from donations from alumni.
A reasonable path forward includes reducing the scarcity value of seats at selective institutions and reducing the differences in the benefits of attending one college over another. The solution to a food shortage is not a better rationing system, but an increase in food production.
If America’s selective colleges and universities both grow, admit and support more lower and middle-income students by reallocating resources to need-based financial aid, they will have to reduce their spending per student on other things to do so. This reduction could be managed with limited impact on the academic program, if expenditures with the smallest marginal contributions to the quality of academic program — exceptionally small classes and light teaching loads, expensive athletic teams and facilities, and support for noncredit summer activities — were eliminated first.
At the same time, we need to reinvest in our public higher education systems, where most students will be educated. The federal government can help by both incentivizing the selective schools to spend more on need-based aid, while also creating incentives for states to support their public higher education systems and institutions. Both California and Texas are good examples of states that are investing in public higher education.
If we can’t find a way to reduce the importance of attending one institution over another, there will continue to be battles over how the available seats are allocated. It will be exceedingly difficult to reduce perceptions and the realities of unfairness, since some groups will lose out while others will gain. Reducing the variance in the quality of higher education opportunities across the board would benefit many students and their families, as well as the economy. The very rich might have less access to some institutions, but their next best alternatives will remain great options and have little impact on their future prospects.
Paying for a seat at a selective university should be different from buying an expensive car.These seats are limited, with demand exceeding supply. They are subsidized by the public and they confer significant benefits on those who have access to them. Given the public subsidies, they should be allocated in some way that contributes to the public good, and not just disproportionately to those who can pay.
Catharine B. Hill is managing director of Ithaka S+R and former president of Vassar College.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
