It seems that every family member and friend that I have bumped into this summer, at least those connected to someone considering higher education, is making a point to take some time to visit one or more of the colleges the prospective student is interested in.

I cringe when I hear this. Yes, visiting a prospective college is a very important step in the process of selecting a school. And yes, to truly get a feel for the school, it is absolutely necessary to spend some time on campus.

That said, I am afraid that summer is simply not the best time to make such a visit.

A Convenient Time to Visit

In reality, summer is the most convenient time for families to visit a college campus. First and foremost, not only is school out for the summer, most students also have a break from extracurricular activities. Active individuals know all too well that even during school vacations during the school year co-curricular activities continue to practice making it extremely difficult to find a block of time to visit prospective schools.

In addition, parents of prospective students often are able to find larger blocks of time during the summer months to make such visits. In fact, most parents tend to plan family vacations and pleasure trips around making a stop or two at a college campus in the vicinity.

So, it is understandable that summer is likely the most convenient time for you and your family to make such a visit. Unfortunately, it is simply not the best time to get a real feel for the campus.

Not a True Picture

While it may give you a basic feel for the campus structurally, a summer visit is devoid of the most important element: What does a day at the campus feel like when students are present and classes are in session?

Visiting during the summer will produce a definitive feeling of quiet solitude. That is because there are simply too few individuals around on summer break. That overall feeling of solitude can be very misleading and make it seem like a campus is devoid of any real social life.

There are not likely to be any athletic contests, no meetings and the outdoor quad and student union will be nearly empty. The bottom line is that students do not get a true feel of what it would be like to be a student.

Most importantly, you will have access only to trained tour guides who have been taught to sell the positive traits of the campus. It will be difficult to gain time to simply talk with other students to get the real skinny and nearly impossible to spend a night on campus or visit a class in session.

Make a Visit and Make it at the Right Time

To get a true sense of whether or not a college is for you, you must take the time to make a campus visit. But at the same time, when you are truly narrowing down the decision, you must make a visit during the school year.

Only by visiting during the academic year can students truly discern whether or not a specific college will meet their respective academic and social expectations and needs.

I still remember my surprise at the closing of Bradford College in May of 2000. The previous spring, I had accompanied a family member that was considering small liberal art colleges on a campus visit.

To be frank, that family member was no longer seriously considering the school when the news of the closing was released. Still, the shock was significant.

Especially given that school had been offering students the opportunity to earn a degree for 197 years.

Important Lesson

That experience reveals the importance of the recent analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. That analysis reveals that 114 private, nonprofit degree-granting colleges have failed the department’s financial-responsibility test.

The financial stress test features composite scores based on three critical ratios. The important elements include the school’s debt load, their expenses as compared to income, and the overall resources of the institution.

These institutions were in such poor financial condition at the end of their last fiscal year that they now face extra monitoring on their use of federal student-aid funds. The lowest scoring are also required to post letters of credit with the department.

In essence, the findings call into question the fiscal viability of each school moving forward. In fact, five of those appearing on the 2007 and 2008 lists have either shut down, merged with another nonprofit school, or been sold to a for-profit college company (John F. Kennedy University in California, Daniel Webster College in New Hampshire, Myers University in Ohio, Waldorf College in Iowa, and the College of Santa Fe).

Eerily Similar to Bradford?

The data is reminiscent of that accompanying the close of Bradford. The school reportedly closed when it failed to draw the requisite number of students, by a mere 31 individuals, at a time when it was running significant deficits.

In fact, most experts point to the school’s borrowing $18 million in 1996 to build new dormitories as the real issue. That move was considered very risky in light of the steadily declining percentage of students attending liberal arts institutions.

Closing was still a shock given the college’s lengthy history. Founded as a girls’ school in 1803, Bradford had begun admitting men and offering bachelor’s degrees during the Viet Nam War era. Over the next thirty plus years the school would be on the cutting edge of liberal arts education. It offered excellent student-faculty ratios and was known for its innovative teaching including its emphasis on internships and community service.

But the stellar program that once offered renowned writer Andre Dubus as a teacher for 18 years and educated Portia Marshall Washington Pittman, the daughter of Booker T. Washington, fell by the wayside when the school put itself at too great a risk financially.

The Bradford story certainly explains why students need to pay careful attention to the data released by the Department of Education.

Request Your School’s Score

In general theory, the financial circumstances of every institution differ, so it would be wrong to assume that every college that fails the test is in such financial straits that it is in danger of closing. Still, students should be extremely wary of any school on the list given the difficulty in transferring credits from institution to institution.

Students should be aware that all private colleges awarding federal student aid are required to participate in the Department of Education’s financial-responsibility test. The composite score created ranges from minus 1.0 to positive 3.0.

The full list of schools below the passing mark of 1.5 is available at The Chronicle of Higher Education but only to full site subscribers. The site does offer web passes but given the importance of this data we recommend concerned students check with the college admissions office regarding their respective school’s score.

How about this for a change to that painful FAFSA application form?

According to reports, Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan has indicated plans to add a new button to the online FAFSA application. That one single button would authorize the IRS to fill in all the FAFSA required financial data directly from all relevant, filed tax returns.

That’s right, a button that would authorize the IRS to collect, summarize and drop the pertinent data already submitted during prior tax seasons into the form in the appropriate places. And with that step, the form we all have to do to be eligible for federal financial aid, the form that everyone, sooner or later comes to despise might actually be on the way towards being reasonable and dare we say it, user-friendly.

Now that would represent change we can believe in!

Promises of Fewer Questions and Quicker Response Times

It seems that at long last the U.S. Department of Education is about to streamline the indeterminate FAFSA form. Under President Barack Obama’s continued pledge to increase access to college, the DOE is about to eliminate 22 questions and some 20 different Web screens that used to appear when students filled out the FAFSA application online.

Perhaps even better news for students and their families, instead of waiting weeks and months to get the results, the new application will be able to provide an estimate on the amount of aid students would be eligible for in the matter of seconds.

All of the changes are seen by the Obama administration as increasing college enrollment. The steps come in direct response to data that indicates that one out of every five students that borrows for college does not fill out the FAFSA form.

Many contend that the reason so many students skip the application has been the sheer volume of information asked for on the form. For everyone the form has been a massive headache, but for some, it has been seen as a barrier.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the FAFSA included 153 questions, some of which were not asked for when parents or the student filed their income taxes. The sum total for the DOE is that the form has ultimately been more difficult than filing income taxes.

The result, an estimated 1.5 million students who currently are enrolled in college likely qualify for Pell grants yet they never applied for them.

The Button by January

While work is under way to streamline and simplify the form, the magic button noted by Duncan still is not ready. The goal for the direct upload of information to the FAFSA from the IRS is scheduled to be in place by January.

So those of you about to enter your senior year in high school, and all those further out from applying, the new financial upload button should be in place by the time your turn comes.

Perhaps just as importantly, Obama wants more streamlining for students. Reports indicate he is asking Congress to eliminate another 26 financial questions, all deemed to have minimal effect on how much aid a student is eligible for.

Of course, while these steps will make it much tougher for us to dump on the FAFSA form down the road, we still wonder why it might not be possible to eliminate the application process altogether. Imagine if the government would, as a matter of course, determine a student’s eligibility based on a family’s tax return alone.

Perhaps the government could even take the step of notifying students directly of their potential eligibility and do so as soon as the child enters public school. Now that would be real progress.

Still, we will take the efforts of the Obama administration. Every single one related to the FAFSA is a step in the right direction.

When the time comes to purchase a car, the old folks recommend that you give the tires a good kick and that you take a peek under the hood. It is an expression that reminds us to look beyond the shadow and the glitz to what really matters. In the case of a car, the most important element is not how it looks but whether it gets you where you need to go.

Likewise, when it comes to attending college, it is important to remember what the ultimate goal is: earning a degree. As with that automobile, it is imperative that prospective college students look beyond the shadow and the glitz to the substance. In the case of a college education, one of the most important elements is completing your college program.

New Report

With the purpose in mind, we turn to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the results of their recent study, Diplomas and Dropouts – Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Don’t). And we offer directly the words from the Executive Summary:

In the fall of 2001, nearly 1.2 million freshmen began college at a four-year institution of higher education somewhere in the United States. Nearly all of them expected to earn a bachelor’s degree. As a rule, college students do not pack their belongings into the back of a minivan in early September wondering if they will get a diploma–only when.

For many students, however, that confidence was misplaced. At a time when college degrees are valuable–with employers paying a premium for college graduates–fewer than 60 percent of new students graduated from four-year colleges within six years. At many institutions, graduation rates are far worse. Graduation rates may be of limited import to students attending the couple hundred elite, specialized institutions that dominate the popular imagination, but there are vast disparities–even among schools educating similar students–at the less selective institutions that educate the bulk of America’s college students.

In simplest terms, the report notes the incredible “variation in graduation rates across more than 1,300 of the nation’s colleges and universities.” What makes the report so important for prospective students is that the folks at AEI found such variations within colleges of similar admissions criteria and students. Not only did the researchers find that four-year American colleges had a graduation rate of 53% within six years, they determined that rates below 50%, 40% and even 30% were distressingly easy to find.

The report offers a very tantalizing summation statement:

…..while student motivation, finances and ability matter greatly when it comes to college completion, the practices of higher education institutions matter, too.

And as for the impact for higher education in the long run, AEI reports:

…graduation rates as calculated here do convey important information–information that should be readily available to students selecting a school, parents investing in their child’s education, and policymakers and taxpayers who finance student aid and public institutions. We believe that the graduation rate measure included here should be just the beginning of a deeper inquiry into college success.

Schools with low graduation rates are not necessarily “bad” schools. A low graduation rate could reflect any number of factors, including a high degree of quality control. A low graduation rate at a school with a special focus on engineering, for instance, could be a signal of the rigor of its curriculum. Low graduation rates also reflect transfer rates, and students could be transferring to more selective schools out of these transfer institutions, thus depressing their graduation rates.

In general, however, we would argue that low graduation rates are an important indicator that
a given school may not be serving the needs of its degree-seeking students. When schools
that admit similar students have vastly different graduation rates, consumers should wonder
what this implies about institutional practices and quality.

Growing Recognition of a Major Issue

The latest report from AEI further raises questions related to America’s higher education system. Given a pass for many years, the paltry graduation rates of many colleges and universities are only now coming to light.

Students considering an institution of higher learning should give careful consideration to this data and information available from AEI. We certainly agree with the latter judgment expressed by the institute:

Low graduation rates are an important indicator. To us, a poor graduation rate reveals a lack of commitment by the school to provide the necessary supports required to ensure the success of degree-seeking students.

Our hat goes off to Sam Lee, a graduate student, and to Inside Higher Ed, for shedding some more light on the shaky college rankings game. Lee had noticed that the University of Southern California ranked lower than seventh on all of the graduate level engineering category subfields yet somehow managed to earn the number seven slot on the U.S. News and World Report College Rankings.

Lee’s questioning led Inside Higher Ed to contact both U.S. News and USC to see if it could get to the bottom of the matter. Turns out the large number of the engineering school’s professors that were reportedly also members of the National Academy of Engineering helped push the USC rankings to seventh.

But while USC reported to U.S. News 30 professors belonging to the academy and the school’s web site listed 34 such professors, Inside Higher Ed, through a very simple fact check, was able to determine that these figures were entirely inaccurate.

For reporting purposes, the school was supposed to be sending along the number of full-time faculty members that met the prestigious status. Turns out, of the 34 listed on the web site, 17 did not meet the criteria set forth by U.S. News.

U.S. News immediately acknowledged that if the school did have fewer faculty members in the academy than had been reported, the engineering college’s ranking would indeed fall. The exact drop would of course depend on the final numbers reported and how they related to competitor schools.

And in one of the most important acknowledgments for students to hear, officials for the magazine also indicated they were not in the business of verifying the accuracy of the reports from schools. Instead, they trust the schools to be institutions of integrity and simply take what is reported at face value. Of course, they also base their rankings on the information provided.

This episode comes on the heels of the surprising candor of a Clemson official who publicly expressed how the rankings could be gamed (including the very issue expressed here, the accuracy of the reported data). That story was all over the internet in prompt fashion as was a followup admonishment from school officials.

Ultimately, the lesson for students is not to put too much emphasis on these rankings. Especially now that it is clear that those doing the ratings acknowledge they do not verify the information provided.

In this economy, applying for financial aid may be an admissions disadvantage.

Most families are surprised to see the page one question on the common application form that asks whether you will be seeking financial aid. Ultimately, the question means admissions committees are aware of your financial need as they review your application packet.

True, the question does not reveal how much aid you will need. But the fact that the question is asked and the answer is available to admissions officials, it would seem that those schools that tout themselves as need-blind just might not be so need-blind as they indicate.

Paying in Full

In late March, the New York Times reported on what may or may not be a changing college dynamic. In “Paying in Full as the Ticket into Colleges,” the Times notes that schools are in fact letting in more wealthy students despite claims they are need-blind.

According to the Times, schools are admitting more students from the waiting list and more transfer students. In addition, some colleges have accepted more international students and only those international students that can pay in full. In addition, there was the suggestion that some schools may be using zip codes or parental backgrounds to help assess a family’s ability to pay.

This should come as no surprise given the financial times. College endowments have followed the path of most families’ college savings plans; sharply downward.

This creates a double-edged sword for higher education. Many applicants are in greater need of financial aid at the very same time that schools have fewer funds available to allocate.

Subsequently, the result has placed an even greater importance on a student’s ability to pay. Simply stated, every full paying student provides additional funds for schools allowing them to then help other students.

And the more full-paying students a school has, the better the school is able to weather the economic downturn.

Not So Need-Blind

While few schools seem willing to admit it, the general consensus is that financial need is playing a more significant role in the selection process. That may not be welcome news for students but it is a fact that applicants must keep in mind.

So, if schools are not so need-blind, what should a student do? The answer is relatively simple.

If you have the funds for school, you may now apply to more selective schools with greater confidence that an acceptance can follow. The economy will not make up for a poor transcript, but in an increasingly competitive market, strong resumes combined with an indication that you will not require financial aid may mean a greater chance of being accepted at more selective colleges.

For those in need of funds, a little more time selecting schools may be necessary. Given that your need might play a role in being accepted, it is imperative that you carefully select your back-up schools based upon a realistic desire to attend those schools.

In theory, need-blind means that your application would be reviewed based on your credentials only. In practicality, it could mean your need would get in the way of your being accepted at the more selective colleges.

Therefore you might get passed over by your number one college choice despite your academic record. If your own state university is not one you truly want to use as a back up, then examine flagship campuses in other states for a school that would meet your academic needs.

Colleges and universities have dozens, maybe hundreds, of scholarships to give away!

Do you know how to search a college or university website for scholarships? Digging up scholarships from college websites has become second nature for us. But it occurred to me that many students might not know how to find those college scholarship lists buried as they can be on deep college pages.

I’m going to share some quick tips that should help you find the scholarship resources you need on any college website, including some you could be missing.

First, let’s understand the common types of scholarships a college provides:

• Institutional scholarships—target general students and are based on academic merit and/or financial need.
• Endowed scholarships are likely department specific, and target a much smaller population of students typically studying in a particular subject or pursuing a certain degree.

**An endowed scholarship is one funded by private sources, often outside alumnae or corporations, usually with fond ties to the institution or department. You’ll also see many awards that have been established in memory of a student or faculty member, also endowed scholarships.

1. Here is a step by step strategy to follow for finding institutional scholarships on a college website:

• Start at ABC College’s homepage, not the bookstore page or the football team’s page, but the main page, probably something like, www.SomeCollege.edu.
• There are some pretty standard links on this page (obviously if any links say “scholarships” that should be a no-brainer, but that situation is rare); look for “Admissions,” “financial aid,” or “financial aid and tuition.” You might be given more general categories, like “prospective students” or “current students.” Some colleges try to make it more intuitive, with links like “paying for school.” Also, many sites feature a “Quick Links” drop down menu. Here you are likely to find a standard “financial aid” link.
• From the Financial Aid main page, you will likely have a choice of links including “how to apply,” “forms and applications,” and “types of financial aid.” Usually the “types of financial aid” link is the lead-in to information on scholarships, as well as loans and work-study programs.
• Follow the “scholarships” link. Chances are good you’ll end up on a page that tells you a bit about the institutional scholarships available, those merit and need-based general scholarships, plus information on eligibility and applying.
• Often there are further links for “outside scholarships” and “endowed scholarships.” Use these to access more targeted awards.

**To sum up what we just did: you should find the general merit and need scholarships on a webpage in the Financial Aid section of the college or university website. When in doubt, always head for “financial aid.”

2. Find endowed or departmental scholarships:

There are a couple of different ways to find the department-specific scholarships on a college or university website.

From the college homepage search any ‘academics’ link, and this should lead you further to a directory of departmental schools and subjects, such as biology or anthropology. After making your selection, most likely you will be lead to the department homepage. This is where your search can get tricky: from here you will likely have two search methods to choose from:

• Direct link to scholarships
• Hunt and peck method

Department specific scholarships may be as easy to find as the “endowed scholarships” link or they may be buried in deeper department pages with little direction on how to access them directly.

Here’s an example I just picked to examine the ‘hunt and peck method’, starting at Georgetown’s homepage:

I see the words ‘academic departments’ on the main menu, so I’m headed in the right direction.

From Georgetown University’s Academic Programs page I noticed a link stating, "All academic programs A-Z". Perfect!

Anthropology was selected from the list and I arrived at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology.

From there I had the following tabs/links from which to choose: Home, About, Programs, Courses, Faculty, Research, and Resources. Logically, which would you choose to explore first? I chose “Resources.”

There I had to choose from even more targeted links, and I went with “For Anthropology Students,”, it seemed logical.

Finally, that led me to the Anthropology Student Resource page and a long list of departmental scholarships and fellowship programs.

See? It can get tricky and I occasionally choose incorrectly using websites of different universities.

**The trick to finding departmental or endowed scholarships: be persistent. What do I do when I’m at a dead end? Back out and try again.

Use Google to find specific pieces of a college website:

When all else fails defer to Google: open a fresh Google search page. In the search box type in a query like this: scholarships <name of department><name of school> then hit Enter or the Search button. For example, I queried:

scholarships anthropology georgetown university

First search result: the GU Anthro department page (same page I described above where I clicked on the Resources link).

**Tip: Large universities house related departments inside colleges. The “College of Arts and Humanities,” for instance, will likely have a variety of departments like English and Sociology, so you might have to dig through a few academic layers to really get to the place where you want to be. If you get confused: Google the department name and university, simple as that.

Barriers to Higher Education are Alive and Well

The Higher Education Act of 1965 launched some of the first financial programs aimed at the support of low-income and disadvantaged students. Since then, dozens of federal and state scholarship and grant programs have been developed to assist the same. A popular theory remains: more and more free money will put more disadvantaged and minority students into college and solve the problem of low college attendance rates among high poverty students. Regardless of the money higher education continues to throw at low-income students, the numbers actually attending college and staying in college remain low. If money is not the solution, then what’s the problem?

The Problem

There are significant numbers of public funds already available for low-income students. Add to this the increasing trend among elite and reputable colleges and universities to spring for full tuition scholarships for academically eligible disadvantaged students and a more relevant question becomes: “With the money available already for low-income and minority students, why do so many fail to earn a college degree?” What circumstances beyond the financial, continue to impede the educational roadway of the disadvantaged student, and why does higher education, at large, repeat the same ineffective gestures in its quest for the solution?

Dream of College Access for All Americans

President Lyndon B. Johnson dreamed of building our country into one in which “a high school senior [could] apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor…” He further declared, “Education in this day and age is a necessity.”¹ He made these statements on the same day he signed the Higher Education Act of 1965 into legislation. If higher education was deemed a necessity in 1965, then it has become critical by today’s standards.

For the most part President Johnson’s dream has become a reality, but outside of the financial, some of the same barriers to higher education remain:

• Schools that fail to adequately prepare students for college.
• Outside influences and expectations, especially those of parents/family and educators.
• Psychological factors.

Secondary Schools Fail to Prepare Students for College

Regardless of the money available to low-income students, in many cases students fail to even qualify for college admission. Perhaps, as some critics of the current system argue, where career and guidance counselors proactive in “talking up” college as soon as middle school, kids particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds would incorporate college goals into their futures much more naturally than when career and education goals are thought inconsequential.

Educators, including teachers, counselors, and principals, simply have low expectations of disadvantaged students, say some proponents of education reform. An overall neglect of college preparation routinely takes place at most minority and high poverty high schools. The perception that disadvantaged students will either not make it into college, have little interest in higher education, or be unworthy of the time spent to get them prepared, are all subversive and deeply damaging perceptions. At best this disregard is a primitive throwback to the same circumstances President Johnson sought to bury.

The Non-Existent College Prep Curricula

Average, college bound high school seniors are alarmingly unprepared for the rigors of college academics, but an even more disturbing population of low-income and minority students seem to avoid college altogether or possess test scores and academic records that have put many in higher education on alert. In fact, the circumstances renew debate over the quality of public school systems: “Nine in ten high school graduates from families earning more than $80,000 attend college by the time they are 24, compared to only six in ten from families earning less than $33,000.”²

Research proves that many of the so-called high school assessment tests “bear little resemblance to the work [students] are expected to do in college.” Despite the best hopes of those students that do possess college degree expectations, preparation for such is sorely lacking—students again and again clearly “lack crucial information on applying to college and on succeeding academically once they get there.”³ College administrators report that most students only think they are academically prepared; the sobering reality is that the so-called college prep curriculum they slogged through in high school was not college level work, after all.

Ironically, this lack of preparedness is the ailment of many average high school grads, and not exclusive to low-income students. But evidence shows that “a greater percentage of low-income students are marginally qualified or unqualified for admission at four-year institutions.”⁴

And college prep includes providing students the appropriate information with which to pursue college, including college search, financial aid and scholarships, and admissions processes. But in many disadvantaged schools the information is not disseminated, not included as a natural progression in education.

For students interested in pursuing college the process becomes a bit like fumbling in the dark: “many low-income college students need aid and do not know how to apply for federal or state assistance.”⁵ Low-income students often opt for a community college—open access and remedial coursework, and schedule flexibility that allows students to work part time and carry on normal family responsibilities.

High Scores vs. Student Success and the “Push-Out” Phenomenon

High schools across the country have new standards by which to adhere. Accountability in secondary education may play a significant part in the collegiate success or failure of certain students. Since the inception of No Child Left Behind the reliance on test-based schools has split students down the middle—in some areas. Students are either an asset or a deficit to a school.⁶

In New York City, test scores served to define a dispensable archipelago of students most likely to fail. Students at disadvantaged schools throughout the region were so overlooked that rogue administrators and educators systematically amputated from the system whole populations of underachievers for the “betterment” of the whole. The plan was simple: “push out” students with poor grades and low test scores and test score averages would look a lot better.⁷

The Teacher Factor

Does a high quality teacher make a difference to a low-income and/or disadvantaged student, and if so, why? A growing body of evidence shows that teachers do matter. But studies have begun to prove an alarming trend: “The very children who most need strong teachers are assigned, on average, to teachers with less experience, less education, and less skill than those who teach other children.”⁸

A study that surveyed three Midwest revealed consistent data proving that in most low income schools teachers were much more likely to be “inexperienced, out-of-field, and uncertified.” Furthermore, as school enrollment of low-income students increased, the population of teachers hired grew increasingly inexperienced.⁹ Most studies declare five years of teaching experience as the dividing line between experienced and inexperienced.

The less experienced the teacher the less likely he or she is to be qualified or motivated to guide disadvantaged students in wise career and education choices. Surprisingly, teacher surveys have also proven that on the whole they, too, tend to have an unsure grasp on the college preparatory process.¹⁰

The qualities most valued and effective in high-quality teachers include:

• Over five years experience teaching within their specialty.
• Teachers able to modify methods on-the-fly and in direct response to student abilities.
• Teachers with degrees from reputable institutions.

Contemporary findings such as these provide more leverage for school systems, and lawmakers when it comes time to plan teacher distribution models designed to serve future generations of students.

Can Experienced Teachers Get Disadvantaged Students to College?

Data has been culled from a crew of challenged high schools, turned-high-performing, in various regions of the U.S. that proves high quality teachers can make a significant difference with at-risk youth. In every high performing school surveyed almost half the student bodies were from high minority-high poverty backgrounds. And in every case the population of college bound students had increased above the national average.

What factors set high performing high schools with diverse student bodies well above others in nurturing college ready graduates?

• High quality and experienced teachers able to adjust methods to suit students.
• A very relevant and challenging college preparatory curriculum that surpasses state requirements.
• Unlimited access to academic tutors and career advisors.¹¹

Part of the goal of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was to promote improvement in high minority/high poverty schools, including attracting more experienced teachers. Contrary to some, both these factors—schools and teachers—continue to figure prominently in the educational futures of students.

College Admission Requirements Detrimental to Disadvantaged Students

Whether high school or college, the fact is that reputation, high marks, selectivity ratings, and even cost of tuition, all constitute factors that conspire to create an institution’s reputation. Ratings and credentials have become a beacon for student business, a means to market and advertise a college to expanding populations of prospective students.

The annual U.S. News and World Report: America’s Best Colleges has become a much-anticipated publication.

New criticism, though, from college administrators aims to downplay the relevancy of some of the ratings, which many say have nothing to do with a good college education. Why so much fuss over ratings? The report has been widely dubbed the college “beauty contest,” and the higher colleges and universities have driven ratings the better their business. But in the process, some pieces of the academic puzzle have been forsaken, like some populations of students.

Ratings Drive Business, Which In Turn Drives Up Admission Reqs

Colleges and universities that rank well in the U.S. News report seek to be considered “selective.” This kind of marketing seems to make business more brisk, but it also makes it challenging to attract a large minority or low-income student population. In order to make a college accessible for the majority of low-income and disadvantaged students, admission requirements must be relaxed.

The traditional metrics of admission include SAT scores and GPA, precisely the type of measurements most low-income students suffer by. As we explored above, it’s not their responsibility—educators have been loath to provide the proper guidance and nurture—and, besides, SAT and GPA are rarely accurate indications of academic worthiness. This then is why a growing stable of college administrators is taking aim at the notoriously exclusive annual ratings race.¹²

Compared to the relatively small number of college administrators backing away from the ratings game, there are plenty that believe in its promise. For instance, a strong cadre of schools believes the marketing theory that overpriced products and services attract buyers and consumers because high price implies high quality. This then is why tuitions are hiked and SAT and GPA requirements inflated. Yet again, disadvantaged students are unable to reach certain institutions where, ironically, money is likely to exist for their education.

When Admission Hikes Purposely Dismiss Disadvantaged Students

Another strategy behind ramped up admission requirements seeks to purposely define the splinter group of underachievers and those students with low test scores and make it impossible for them to essentially clog the way of those students without academic challenges. Low income and minority students with low SAT scores and low GPAs “will be steered” to the state’s community colleges.

Simultaneously more college prep programs are being built into the state’s public school system. Students will now have a system in place able to alert them should their academics fall below realistic first year college goals.¹³

Outside Influences Offer Most Resistance to College Life

Besides money and academic challenge, many low-income and disadvantaged students face challenges much more murky to middle and upper income, white Americans. In some cases the influence of parents and family are more profound than more mainstream issues.¹⁴

Parental Influence

Consider the idea that many minority and low-income students come from first generation families, meaning no one else has yet gone to college. For many average American students, the dream of a college degree is fueled over the years by parents. When that drive is not there, other priorities may take precedence, such as job, finance and family.

It’s not that parents of first gen college students have no desire to see their children succeed, even go to college, but most are unable to provide the type of support necessary to bolster a fresh and, perhaps, disenfranchised college newbie.

Cultural Perceptions of Debt

Financial aid experts may also have discovered another roadblock—“cultural aversion to debt.” Over the years the financial aid needs of middle and upper income students have risen, but statistics have shown little or no increase in the student loan debt among low-income and ethnic minority student groups, which “calls into question the effectiveness of student loans in aiding low-income populations.” Studies strongly suggest that minorities are “more sensitive to price and less willing to use educational loans to pay for college when making their college decisions.”¹⁵

Tuition sticker shock may be a similar deterrent. Even though academically talented low-income students may qualify to enroll in elite universities where the ability to prove a certain level of disadvantage buys them a free ride, only a fraction of those actually eligible partake of the opportunity. The scholarships from institutions like Harvard and Princeton are not just in place for altruistic purposes. These “white-bread” institutions want to diversify and offering money for disadvantaged students seems a good idea. Surprisingly, a much larger wellspring of academically qualified low-income students is out there. SAT scores prove the numbers,¹⁶ but where are they?

Educator Expectation Matters, Too

The nation’s low-income students, including those with academic fortitude and those dubbed low-achievers, may share common bonds: many face familial and cultural obstacles, but do they also face low educator expectations? Studies have already measured the effect of educator expectation on the college outcomes of low-income, minority students and found alarming numbers of low-quality teachers and counselors with little hope for students in lower income brackets.

Teachers and advisors acting out of their personal beliefs and stereotypes may be unable to provide the unbiased guidance underserved students require to get them to the doorstep of a college campus, whether it be a community college or one of the elite universities.¹⁷

What Then if Not Money?

Considering the obstacles discussed above, are there further psychological impacts? If I am a student from a low-income household in which neither of my parents attended college, isn’t it likely that a college degree will not be a main priority in my life? And if I am academically talented, would I not feel out of place and disenfranchised on a Harvard campus even if my education were fully funded?

If I overheard teachers in my high school complaining about their jobs and saying that many of the students will be lucky to make it to graduation, much less college, would I not doubt my teachability, my worth as a student?

Harvard can roll out its red carpet and dangle full scholarships ‘til the cows come home, but what really eats away at the collegiate futures of low-income, minority students—talented or not—has little to do with money.

Footnotes

1. LBJ for Kids, accessed September 3, 2007, http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/edu_whca370-text.shtm.
2. “Harvard Announces New Initiative to Aimed at Economic Barriers to College,” Harvard University Gazette, February 28, 2004, accessed September 5, 2007, http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0402/28-finaid.html.
3. Rooney, Megan, “High Schools Fail to Prepare Many Students for College, Stanford Study Says,” March 3, 2003, accessed September 4, 2007, http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/news-bureau/displayRecord.php?tablename=susenews&id=25.
4. Andrea Venezia, Michael Kirst, Anthony Antonio, Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K-12 Schools and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations, 2003, accessed September 4, 2007, http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/betrayingthecollegedream.pdf.
5. Kirst, Michael, “Betraying the College Dream in America,” The College Puzzle, August 21, 2007, accessed September 4, 2007, http://thecollegepuzzle.blogspot.com/2007/08/betraying-college-dream-in-america.html.
6. Beveridge, Andrew, “Counting Drop Outs,” Gotham Gazette, August 2003, accessed September 4, 2007, http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20030814/5/492.
7. Beveridge, Andrew, Gotham Gazette.
8. Heather Peske, Kati Haycock, Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality, The Education Trust, June 2006, accessed September 2, 2007, http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/010DBD9F-CED8-4D2B-9E0D-91B446746ED3/0/TQReportJune2006.pdf.
9. Peski, Haycock, The Education Trust.
10. Venezia, Kirst, Antonio, Betraying the College Dream
11. “Preparing All High School Students for College and Work: What High-Performing Schools are Teaching,” ACT, February 23, 2005, accessed August 30, 2007, http://www.act.org/news/releases/2005/2-23-05.html.
12. “U.S. News College Rankings Debated,” The Online News Hour (transcript), PBS, August 20, 2007, accessed September 5, 2007, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec07/rankings_08-20.html.
13. Tresaugue, Matthew, “UT Campuses Will Raise Admission Standards,” University of Houston, May 10, 2007, accessed September 5, 2007, http://www.uh.edu/ednews/2007/hc/200705/20070510admission.html.
14. Szelenyi, Katalin, “Minority Student Retention and Academic Achievement in Community Colleges,” 2004, accessed August 29, 2007, http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-4/minority.html.
15. Cultural Barriers to Incurring Debt, ECMC Group Foundation, 2003, accessed September 3, 2007, http://www.ecmcfoundation.org/documents/CulturalBarriersExecSummary.pdf.
16. “Large Numbers of Highly Qualified, Low-Income Students Are Not Applying to Harvard and Other Highly Selective Schools,” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2006, accessed August 26, 2007, http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/52_low-income-students.html.
17. Patricia George and Rosa Aronson, How Do Educators’ Cultural Belief Systems Affect Underserved Students’ Pursuit of Postsecondary Education?” Pathways to College Network, 2003, accessed September 3, 2007, http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/EducatorsCulturalBeliefs.pdf.

What SAT Scores Reveal and the Demise of Marriageable Males

Girls, young women, there are too many of you on America’s college campuses. That is in comparison with your male counterparts. The college world has been waiting patiently for the scales to rebalance themselves, but male enrollment remains lackluster, so intervenes humankind.

Male Affirmative Action

Our report, The White Man’s Guide to Getting a Minority Scholarship, examines the possibilities for a white male qualifying for minority scholarships. It is a controversial topic, at best, and not one we take lightly.

But, what exactly has happened to the populations of males, many white, on college campuses, that continues to inspire the marginally offensive concept?

SAT Scores: Education’s Favorite Metric

Back in the mid-90s legal action against College Board and Educational Testing Service served to correct what educational experts had alleged for years “that the PSAT, the test that makes high school students eligible for National Merit Scholarships” was designed to appeal more to males than to females. The corrected test was designed with a writing component, which seemed to offer an equitable correction.

It’s been understood for decades that females perform better in the classroom than males, but on tests the opposite was true. In 1995, based on university research, the following SAT truths were proven:

“The SAT falls far short of its sole advertised claim — the accurate prediction of first year college grades — by consistently underestimating the academic performance of females.”

So college admissions systems based on test scores of course tended to favor males.

Why the Shortage of Males on Campus, though?

Current research suggests that because girls “from all backgrounds” adapt more readily to classroom environments many are quite prepared for college when it rolls around. Secondary school systems lag alarmingly behind in proper college preparation. But if females can keep up, it may just be a symptom of Education’s bigger ill that a larger percentage of males than in the past are not making it to college, a problem that is complicated even more because it apparently cuts across all other demographics.

Does the SAT continue to influence college demographics? Here’s a basic comparison test. Consider:

• Males tend to score higher on the math portion of the SAT.
• Females tend to score higher on the reading portion of the SAT.
• Given an average math SAT score and an average reading SAT score from a college campus, how closely do the scores reflect the gender demographics of the campus?

Armed with statistics on average math and reading SAT scores from almost any college campus in the U.S., I chose a few colleges with scores significantly higher in both categories and a few with scores relatively even. My questions: in cases where math scores far outpace reading scores will I find a larger population of males on campus, and when the scores in reading are significantly higher will I find more females? At the same time, when SAT averages for both categories are somewhat even will the gender demographics be also fairly split?

A couple of obvious choices:

• Sweet Briar College (women’s college); math: 548, reading: 586
• Hampden-Sydney College (men’s college); math: 573, reading: 571

• Bowdoin College; math: 690, reading: 690; 577 males, 655 females.
• Carnegie Mellon University; math: 718, reading: 657; 60% male, 40% female (CMU admits more women to try and balance its heavy engineering and comp sci degree programs)
• College of the Atlantic; math: 586, reading: 624; 55 males, 133 females (very small college enrollment)
• Evergreen State College; math: 539, reading: 587; 25% males, 75% females.
• Lafayette College; math: 665, reading: 620– 1,095 males, 1,051 females
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology; math: 755, reading: 712; 44% females (undergrad)
• Ohio Wesleyan University; math: 605, reading: 606– 1,111 males, 1,076 females.
• Reed College; math: 661, reading: 698– 55% female and a strong Humanities curriculum.

Drive for Balanced Campuses: Better Social Life and the Fear of a Diminishing Educated (Nubile) Male Population

For the most part the above SAT scores are indicative of the demographics, but a more telling statistic may be the comparison between the numbers of male and female applicants at any one institution versus those actually chosen for admission. This is likely where major turns of the screw occur. While the debate seems focused on ‘gender parity’, a much murkier, and at times sophomoric, rationale is at work: for example, the unspoken fear that the decreasing population of male students will translate into a less educated, less marriageable male population for their well-educated female counterparts.

• At MIT females face a much easier time of admission over 7,000 males apply annually, compared with over 2,000 females, but the ratio of those actually admitted is 758 males : 736 females.

• At Lafayette College, the formerly male student body has emphasized female enrollment and now is close to gender parity. Nearly 800 more male applicants than female are considered annually, but enrollment is almost balanced.

• The College of William and Mary is one that has made headlines in the last few years for its high rejection rate for women. Men have a much easier time with admissions: over 2,000 more applications from females are received annually, in comparison to males, but the ratio of students admitted is 1,596 male : 1,696 female.

The William and Mary syndrome has become the way of admissions at many smaller, private schools.

Why is it that we always want to fix things?

Some conservative pundits think that favoritism in college admissions is perfectly fine “we just must be upfront about it.” I’m a bigot & that’s okay, because I’m being honest about it. The Admitting-it-Makes-it-Okay Theory. Hmmmm.

Do we really have that much of a problem just enrolling students based on the merit of their applications and interests? What are the roadblocks to unbiased college admissions? What trips us up and makes us favor one type of student over another? And what, pray tell, keeps some admissions officers up at night fearful of a less than worthy male (viable mate) population?

I wonder when the education ecosystem, unnaturally manipulated, might begin to exhibit signs of a new kind of stress.

Scholarships for Low Income Students at Elite Universities

I know you’re out there. The statistics prove it. While only a fraction of you actually applies to Harvard or Princeton, many more probably flirt with the thought then dismiss it’s too unrealistic, who would believe it, right? SAT records prove a much deeper pool of academically eligible low-income students than most educators would have us believe, or maybe no one expected, and expectations do play a part, don’t they?

The List

Here’s the list of colleges and universities, and it’s constantly growing, that provide full scholarships to academically talented low-income students (and you’re out there):

• Harvard
• Princeton
• Stanford
• Amherst College
• University of North Carolina
• University of Virginia
• Williams College
• University of Washington
• University of Chicago (starts Fall 2008)

One study showed that based on SAT scores, low-income students from over 10,500 high schools in the U.S. possessed scores that would make them eligible for Harvard’s admissions requirements, but that students from only 5,000 (that’s half, 50%) of those schools actually applied. If there was only 1 student counted from each of those schools, then over 5500 students chose something else.

Why?

Deeper factors contribute to the college choices made by underserved students, factors like family and parental opinions, even self-perception.

See Yourself to a Free and Elite Degree

1. Picture Yourself [ here], now fill in the blank with one of the names off that list right up there. Imagine yourself everyday on that campus; get a real good picture in your mind. Call or write for the catalog and cut out pictures of the campus & pin them up in your room, tape them to the fridge.

2. Reach out and contact someone on the campus. For example, many colleges and universities have student and faculty bloggers. Logon and ask questions, post a comment, become engaged with a piece of the college life. In the case of faculty blogs, this is an excellent way to make an academic contact, a possible mentor and someone who may be able to actually lend some gentle guidance and advice. A couple blogs I quickly found:

• A Harvard Economics Professor
• The Amherst Chirp
• Stanford School of Medicine student blogs

Just a few ideas… Take your catalog, your admission form, and contact information to your high school career counselor and tell him or her to picture you [ there].