http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/education/31college.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us
This article addresses the current trend in university admissions of steering away from accepting incoming students on a need-blind basis, and beginning to accept wealthier students who are in no need of financial aid. Although colleges and universities are a business, and are looking to make money for their institution, we need to look at the implications of such a trend. There are economic realities, of course, to offering financial aid to a large number of students, but shouldn’t the bottom line of a university be to educate the students to their greatest ability, and to be confident, when they leave, that they will succeed in their chosen career? The discrepancies are clear, and the gap between the students attending the most respected schools and community schools, for example, will greatly expand. There will be a larger hierarchy to the American education system; talented lower-income high school students will almost be forced to attend a college or university that does not challenge them to the extent essential for them to thrive. Meanwhile, many international and less talented higher-income students are being accepted into respected schools without as much as a blink of an eye by admissions. The pure fact that they can pay the full tuition with no financial aid is enough reason for them to be allowed into the freshman class.
This is wrong; criteria for acceptance is steering away from the best SAT scores, the highest number of AP courses taken and passed, etc., it is now based on the ZIP code you live in, or your parent’s background. Of course, one can argue that all the earlier criteria is still looked at and taken into consideration accordingly, but let’s be realistic; according to the article, a stellar student with the highest G.P.A. in their high school in need of financial assistance will become second best to the less-than-mediocre student that comes from a wealthy town, lives in a multi-million dollar home, and can easily pay the tuition set by the school. It’s a reality, and it’s not fair. The United States is known for its level playing field, especially in education. Of course, universities itself vary across the nation, but it has been a common practice for years to accept students on a need-blind basis. Diversity will suffer on college campuses; the wealthy will be attending the most respected schools in the nation, while the average will be forced into the rest. This is an elitist situation, for sure.
After reading this article, it’s somewhat obvious that this trend has permeated at least somewhat into our campus. Bentley is a predominantly wealthy campus, and international students attending the university are at an all time high. I would hate to think that next year, or five years down the line, people wouldn’t be able to attend this excellent school just because their wallets were stopping them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
This article should not come as a surprise. The struggling economy has affected all areas of life and it has finally caught up with the universities. Colleges are businesses and they rely on income from student tuition. It is true however, that many large universities and prestigious schools, have large endowments from which to draw funds and get many gracious donations from alumni. These schools have no excuse to not be taking the very best students that apply. Harvard University has the largest endowment in the United States which was posted at about $25.5 billion in 2005 (msnbc.com) and has grown considerably since then. There is no reason why schools such as this should be sacrificing their best applicants that are in need of financial aid for mediocre affluent applicants. These schools could not charge tuition at all and still have enough money from their endowment and donations to continue educating for decades. The small schools are where the issue arises. The schools with small endowments rely on current tuition to support their institution. These are the schools that are going to be tempted to choose the financially sound students over the ones in need of aid because they need the money. They will claim they need the money to expand and progress and their argument is somewhat valid. Bentley is in fact one of these schools, with an endowment of only $240 million (usnews.com), they are going to have to choose between bright could-be students or those that can pay the bill.
This argument, although valid, is morally wrong. A student that is gifted or has worked hard should not be denied the opportunity to learn at the college level because they can’t afford it. This is discrimination at its best. One idea to counteract this discrimination might be to have no financial information about applicants released to colleges until after their acceptance. But who could mandate such a thing? The government might be able to for state schools but what of private institutions? Could it be that good old fashioned morals are the only defense?
It is important to look at the reality of the situation in this case. There is only so much money to go around. Education is a business, as is medicine, law, and so forth. Less affluent people can afford less expensive medical attention and less experienced legal counsel; it obviously spreads to education as well, and it is not entirely new. Even earlier, students who received high levels of aid were deterred from attending more expensive institutions because of the few thousand extra dollars per year. It may not be considered fair, but there is no way around it.
Admitting students at institutions that cannot afford it on a need-blind basis could actually be considered unfair. If universities do not cut aid, they will need to cut something else. This could be maintenance, academic programs, salaries of faculty and staff, student clubs, athletics, or any number of things. Cutting these expenses affects not only roughly 5% of the incoming class, but all current and prospective students. Eventually the status of the school would decline; this would lead to students less worthy of aid applying and being accepted. It comes down to harming a very small number of incoming freshmen or harming an entire institution; it seems that those who look at finances made the right decision.
The situation is also being slightly dramatized. Ivy League schools are not going to begin accepting students that score 2000 on their SATs and that are not in the top 5% of their class if they can afford to pay tuition. Universities obviously rule out initial applicants based on test scores and academic standing rather than on “zip codes or parent history.” They then move on to financial status for those at the very margins. This includes prospective with applications at the very middle-ground and those that are placed on the wait-list. In short, a school considering financial status more than normal is absolutely bound to happen given the state of the economy. It cannot feasibly avoided and should therefore be expected and accepted.
Yes, it is true that the economy is affecting practically every facet of life, and it is true, as everyone so far has mentioned, that colleges and universities are businesses, however in no way does the truth of these two statements make what this article is discussing right or fair. Accepting students on the basis of their financial situation alienates so many smart, young people from receiving the quality college education that they have worked hard for thus far in their lives. Money should not be the determining factor in a college's admissions department choosing a mediocre applicant with passing grades and minimal involvement over an applicant with a stellar track record, high test scores, and a high level of involvement. As Katie stated, the diversity on college campuses will suffer, with the attending students becoming almost clones of one another, and clones with a lot of money at that.
One person mentioned that if colleges continue to give out large amounts of financial aid and thus lose money from the tuitions of those students, that the money would have to be cut from other things such as maitenance, salaries, clubs, or athletics. They said that if this were to happen, the status of the school would decline. The way I see it, admitting less qualified applicants with more money would also decrease the status and quality of the school. The admitted students then have the potential to not be as involved around campus, to not branch out and create contacts through internships and community service, and thus to not have jobs waiting for them when they graduate. This would lower the school's job placement after graduation figure among other figures, and could have the potential to turn students away who are contemplating enrolling at the school in the future.
Lastly, now more than ever having a college degree is extremely important. Without a college degree, good luck getting anything more than a minimum wage paying job, especially given the current shape of the economy and unemployment levels. If those who cannot afford to pay full tuition are unable to attend college, they are going to be forced into one of these low paying jobs. Then, in turn, they will not have the money to send their children to college and the cycle will continue. Attending college should not only be an option for young adults today, it should be a reality. Having to be able to pay full tuition to attend a college is by no means making it reality for many.
I understand that it is a business and they need money, but colleges need to be careful of their actions. If you think long term, by accepting people based on income colleges may be hurting themselves. It’s not a secret that colleges are in the business of making money and the general public knows that some students are let in purely on their families’ bank statements. While this practice may be swept under the radar in small percentages, it is going to have impacts if this occurs in larger numbers. Colleges that increasingly accept more affluent students are going to get a reputation. We all know the saying, “Pay your fees and get your B’s.” It’d be unfortunate if what were once prestigious schools were looked at this way.
I think it is important to note that not all colleges are doing this. Just because a school is private doesn’t mean they are just interested in money. Some schools are working hard to keep up their high standards. Harvard has the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative in which aid is expanded to applicants with low or mid levels of income. For example, families with an annual income below $60,000 are not expected to contribute to educational costs. Families with an annual income between $60,000 and $80,000 are expected to contribute at a reduced rate. This helps show that while money is helpful, grades still count for something.
I’m sure that we can all agree that the practice of admitting only wealthier students is unfair, but life is not fair. A college’s main job is to educate its students to the best of its abilities. If they need to start cutting academic budgets, then they are failing in this responsibility to the students who are paying big bucks to study there.
Private universities have the freedom to choose who represents them based upon whatever criteria they deem necessary. Due to affirmative action, minority students have been given advantages when being considered for acceptance. I do not see the difference between these two cases. In both instances a group of people are being discriminated against in order for the college to fulfill a need.
In these financially rough times, colleges and universities are lacking in funds to give out to incoming students. In my opinion, it is worth it for them to deny talented students admission in order to make room for wealthier students. Sure their academics will slip briefly, but the cash flow will allow them to expand, hire better professors, and stay up to date with the latest technologies. In the long run this will enhance the quality of the school and make it more desirable to prospective students. Eventually, they will once again be able to give aid to needy students, and people will be happy once again.
The harsh reality of the tough economic times includes a decrease in college endowment funds. Bentley’s endowment was actually valued at $220 Million less than a year ago. It is currently valued at around $160 Million. However, Bentley’s 27% loss is much less than many other colleges due to a heavily diversified portfolio. Most colleges invest a large portion of their endowment funds in the stock market. When the stock market crashed, many colleges lost a large percentage of their endowments.
It is not fair that colleges accept students who appear to be wealthier, yet they cannot afford to pay the financial aid and give scholarships to students in need. Interestingly many schools that claim to be need blind don’t accept too many students who are of serious poverty. This may be partly due to the fact that high schools in poor sections do not measure up to those in wealthier districts. It is much harder for a student from a poorer area to get the grades and SAT scores to attend a prestigious university like Georgetown or Brandeis, which claim to be need blind. Maybe the real issue is this imbalance. Even if a student were to have a very high GPA and class rank at a school in a poor district, it will seem equal to a student who did average at a school in a very wealthy district. For example, a student from the public High School in Camden, NJ who was near the top of his class and had a very high GPA will seem the same as a student near the middle of his class at a prestigious prep school such as BC prep. This is because colleges know the curriculum is probably harder at the prep schools, so it is harder to get a high GPA. This is one reason accepting students on a need blind basis doesn’t really work too well. Also most schools that accept students on a need blind basis are upper echelon schools with very high standards.
The current economy is only making it harder for students from poor areas to get into their top college choices, due to less financial aid and scholarships being given out. It may be considered morally wrong and it certainly isn’t right, but it is the way it is, and schools are not willing to take on the financial risk of accepting too many students who will receive scholarships and financial aid.
Instead of looking at this issue as an abuse of power by college institutions in terms of general education, I want to look at this article as an exercise of private business rights. While such practices will rile up huge student populations that are personally affected by the financial decisions that their schools make, it is important to note that these are PRIVATE businesses. These are not state schools that have obligations to the governments because of their funding; these are private businesses whose only responsibilities are to their board of directors and their companies.
Private businesses must make profits to stay in afloat and must make ugly decisions to stay profitable. Obviously this is a very controversial business decision, but it is a business decision nonetheless. Private businesses have every right within the bounds of local and federal law to do anything to make their enterprises wealthier. Either way, they will feel the wrath of their choices. If there is a huge backlash and their enrollment goes way down as a result of this decision, then they will bear full responsibility. If the private institutions maintain profitability in tough economic times due to tough decisions, then they have met their obligations to their stakeholders and have theoretically made good business decisions.
While the shift towards accepting wealthier students can be seen as unfair, it is a decision that is, for now, protected by law and is completely an exercise of the rights of private institutions. Although they are schools, they are businesses nonetheless.
In these economic days, of course universities are faced with fallen endowments and needier applicants and current students, and it is a normal course of business action to find a way to dodge that trend, and search for ways to maintain profitability. The way in which they are searching for more money in their pockets is what is under scrutiny, and you have all explained that in one way or another in your comments, and I completely agree with you.
And I do somewhat agree with Alex on his last comment; they are private businesses that are protected by law, and can act in any manner within the realm of their rights. With more students applying for aid in this economy, and with those currently with aid asking for more, it is quite obvious and to some extent acceptable that there are only so many scholarship students they can afford.
Putting a lighter spin on the issue, taking more students who can afford to pay full-priced tuition allows the universities to better serve those that cannot; if there was a truly intelligent applicant who was suffering financially, I personally find it hard to believe that an institution would shy him or her away, with the many benefits that the student could provide for the school.
If this trend continues, maybe the gap will not be as wide as we originally believed. I predict that there will be a sort of up-scaling of less-prestigious schools, and a down-scaling of the elite. In an extreme situation, if only the wealthy were allowed into the elite colleges despite their true academic standing, then the academic reputation of the school will inevitably decrease, while the reputation of the less-prestigious schools will increase, as they will be filled with the intelligent that might not have had the money in the bank to afford the elite. Of course, when money runs short, the universities’ options become few, and it is not too surprising that this is their current course of action. They should just be warned because in the long-run, it could turn around and bite them in the butt.
Post a Comment