The Accessibility of a College Education to Socially Disadvantaged Groups

Bryce Katch

Professor Babcock

English 137

15 November 2018
 Katch 1

The Accessibility of a College Education to Socially Disadvantaged Groups

The concept of championing for minority rights is far from foreign to Americans. It takes

only a brief look at news headlines, emblazoned with inflammatory rhetoric surrounding race,

gender, or socioeconomic status, to confirm that the American society is still far from where all

are created equal. Historically, the nation has been plagued by social inequalities, where minority

groups are relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy with minimal opportunity for upward

mobility. Perhaps, the most obvious example is that of African-Americans, who wore the chains

of slavery for centuries, and despite the changes in the legal system, the beast of oppression

continues to rear its ugly head. However, there have been deliberate attempts on multiple fronts

to counter centuries of bitter inequality. Though social oppression is a multi-faceted, multi-tiered

issue, viewing progress on a specific front can simplify the discussion. One such front, college

education, saw unprecedented strides towards greater accessibility in the back half of the 20th

century. Specifically, analysis of the admissions process provides insight into how disadvantaged

groups have seen greater opportunity in garnering a college education. From the mid-20th

century to the present day, the college admissions process has seen the implementation of

programs to promote greater accessibility and achieve greater representation of socially

disadvantaged groups.

One specific implementation, affirmative action, was spearheaded in the 1960s to

compensate for obstacles faced by underrepresented groups. Affirmative action, the idea that

oppressed groups are given favorable treatment in a selection process, was introduced in bills

signed by John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. The initial bill targeted specifically

government contractors, but even at this scope, was not necessarily followed in every instance.
 Katch 2

Furthering civil rights legislation was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in which Title

VI called for desegregation of all educational institutions (Barta Moreno 16). Even after the more

targeted mandate, minorities still felt that affirmative action in higher education was at best

loosely enforced. In 1973, Kenneth Adams litigated against the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare for failure to enforce desegregation. Ruling in favor of Adams, the court

found that multiple states had failed to provide a desegregation plan altogether, proving that Title

VI was far from the ideal enforcement in higher education (Barta Moreno 16). In combination,

the legislation passed demonstrates an attempt to make college admission more accessible to

black Americans when previously there was no such opportunity.

In the process of passing affirmative action legislation, there was significant amounts of

backlash. In nearly all cases of objection, white Americans felt that they were facing “reverse

discrimination”, where a seemingly lesser qualified candidate was obtaining admission due to

their skin color. Regardless of the actual merit of these claims, the societal attitude towards

affirmative action shifted in a negative direction as a result. One specific Supreme Court case,

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, highlighted popular white American sentiment

towards affirmative action (Barta Moreno 17). At the time, several universities had adopted a

quota for minorities in their admissions process. The University of California, specifically, had

reserved sixteen out of one hundred seats in its medical program for minorities. Bakke, who had

received repeated rejection from the program despite being overqualified, sued the University on

the front of reverse discrimination. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Bakke, claiming that

use of a racial quota as a form of affirmative action is unjust. However, the court simultaneously

managed to uphold the broader idea of affirmative action by stating that race can still be used as
 Katch 3

a deciding factor in the admissions process. As a whole, the justices did not come to a consensus,

failing to field a majority opinion (“Regents of the University of California”). The lack of

agreement on the Bakke case demonstrated American reluctance to affirmative action, where

people believed it was necessary but unsure of the proper implementation.

While affirmative action largely targeted racial minorities, other programs were put in

place to create opportunity for other disadvantaged groups. Given the price tag typically

associated with a college education, financial aid is one of the broadest ways to make higher

education more accessible. One of the earliest instances of financial aid in American history was

the creation of the G.I. Bill, which provided grants designed for servicemen continuing their

education (Fuller 48). Though seemingly simple, the results of the proposition were startling.

Within a decade of the passing of the bill, enrollment in universities doubled. In its simplicity,

the G.I. bill laid the groundwork for future, more generalized, financial aid programs (Fuller 49).

In the 1980s, two significant financial aid incentives were created, both designed for financially

disadvantaged students seeking higher education. The first, the Pell Grant program, was created

for students whose families made less than $25,000 per year. Pell Grants do not require

repayment, unlike most loans received by modern students. The second incentive, the Stafford

Loan program, was designed to lend financially disadvantaged students money to fund their

education (Fuller 54). The Stafford Loan program still accounts for a high proportion of loans

taken out by students today (Fuller 55). As a pair, the Pell Grant and Stafford Loan program

increased accessibility of a college education to students struggling financially.

Though financial aid is more defined than the murky regulations behind affirmative

action, there was still debate surrounding the larger economic picture behind such student
 Katch 4

assistance programs. The secretary of education from 1985 to 1988, William Bennett, proposed

the idea that increases in federal financial aid drive up the cost of college tuition (Fuller 55). The

logic behind the idea is quite simple; the subsidy lowers the net cost for students, so the colleges

will then increase their tuition until the subsidy becomes moot. Despite this seeming sensical on

a superficial level, the complicated goals of a university are not accurately represented by

Bennett’s hypothesis. Indeed, economic studies behind the Bennett hypothesis fail to reach a

uniform conclusion, where some studies back the claim while others refute it. Researchers have

found that the hypothesis largely holds for for-profit schools, while a conclusion has not been

formed otherwise (Gillen et al.). Ultimately, like with affirmative action, the societal impact does

not lay within the merit of the claims, but rather their existence. Bennett’s hypothesis, whether

fact-based or not, generated opposition the creation of federal financial aid programs. In both the

case of financial aid and affirmative action, the lack of consensus slows the creation of new

programs benefiting disadvantaged groups.

The complications behind both programs are easily visible in the present day, manifesting

in ways unique to the modern social climate. In regards to affirmative action, a new group has

been brought to the forefront: Asian Americans. In December 2015, Students for Fair

Admissions litigated on behalf of Asian Americans against Harvard University, claiming Asian

Americans were unfairly discriminated against in the admissions process. In the investigation

process, multiple signs of discrimination were unearthed, including Asian-Americans

consistently receiving lower “personality scores” and requiring higher SAT scores for

admissions. (“Students for Fair Admissions”). Though Asian Americans are obviously an ethnic

minority, the case brings about an interesting question: are all ethnic minorities disadvantaged,
 Katch 5

and should all ethnic minorities be supported by affirmative action? Within the American social

fabric, Asian-Americans have been established as what some deem a “model minority”, as

opposed to black and Hispanic Americans. In this situation, universities have received large

amounts of overqualified Asian-American applications, yet Asian-Americans are accepted at the

lowest rate out of any racial group, including whites. Given these statistics, it is painfully

obvious that the affirmative action process is selective in terms of which minorities receive

preference, yet there is still no uniform idea on how affirmative action applies to all groups.

Unlike affirmative action, the direct complications behind financial aid lie not within the

programs themselves, but with the overall rising cost of college and increasing amount of student

debt. From 1988 to 2018, the average cost of tuition at a private university has risen from

approximately $17,000 to $38,000, inflation-adjusted (“Tuition and Fees”). Grants, scholarships,

and loans have attempted to decrease the gap, yet there is still a net increase in what students

have had to pay. Regardless, there are penalties faced by disadvantaged students in the

admissions process that cannot be fixed. One such example lies within early decision

applications. Early decision application is binding, meaning that the student is committing upon

application. However, students are not informed of the financial aid they will receive when

applying, so financially disadvantaged students are inherently discouraged of applying early

decision. At elite universities, early decision typically sees a significantly greater acceptance

rate, which financially disadvantaged students literally cannot afford to risk (Avery and Levin

2129). In this way, early decision application creates a financial divide, where financially able

students have the opportunity to apply at a time when they are more likely to be accepted.
 Katch 6

Beyond the complications of such programs, the transition into the 21st century has seen

a shift in college admissions that further harms disadvantaged groups. One notable shift has been

the steady decrease in the acceptance rate of universities nationwide (Avery and Levin 2125).

Resulting from this steady decrease has created a greater sense of competition at the high school

level, manifesting in multiple ways. The creation of the internet and rapid dissemination of

media has contributed to sources like US News, which provide definitive rankings for

universities. Though the rankings are not necessarily scientific, they generate a societal

perception around the universities. When universities are placed in the top echelon, they are seen

as more attractive by students, and in turn see greater competition for acceptance. This greater

competition creates a trickle-down effect at the high school and middle school levels. There are

an increasing amount of prep and magnet schools, which have also have respective admissions.

The admissions exams ultimately target disadvantaged groups once again, because they often

lack the human or financial resources to succeed. In some extreme examples, businesses have

formed around acceptance into prep schools, so wealthy prospective students can essentially

“pay their way in” (Rab).

Beyond the trickle down at the high school level, there has been commercial development

surrounding undergraduate college admissions. Nearly all students enrolled in the AP curriculum

are familiar with the notorious “prep books”, such as those created by the Princeton Review or

Barron’s. Standardized admissions exams such as the SAT and ACT also have prep books and

even courses which can be taken to succeed on the test. In both cases, the ability to financially

invest in one’s score favors financially privileged over those who are financially disadvantaged.

Unfortunately, the disenfranchisement of financially disadvantaged individuals continues in a

 Katch 7

cycle. When the wealthy students become parents, their children also reap the same benefits their

parents once did. When factors like prep materials come into play, the wealthy students are able

to access materials non-wealthy students cannot. Consequently, the poorer students are already

disadvantaged in breaking the social cycle (Karen). As a whole, the rise of an economic

infrastructure surrounding the college admissions process undermines the programs in place to

aid underrepresented groups in obtaining a seat at a university.

Reflecting on the transformation in the college admissions process since the second half

of the 20th century, it becomes apparent that underrepresented groups have objectively a greater

amount of resources to receive placement into college. With the institution of affirmative action

for underrepresented racial groups, the G.I. bill for servicemen, and the Pell Grants and Stafford

Loans, an infrastructure has been put in place for larger diversity in higher education. Despite

these advancements, there has been opposition and complications that have slowed or even

counteracted progress. Affirmative action remains a contentious topic to date, and it is unclear

whether federal grants have the potential to drive up tuition in the long term. In the 20th century,

there have been factors that undermine the progress towards diversity, including the preparatory

companies charging students to achieve higher on exams. At this point, dismantling the

economic infrastructure behind preparatory materials is impossible, so the next step is to make

these materials more accessible to the disadvantaged groups. Moreover, it is the responsibility of

the universities to make sure that they adapt affirmative action and financial aid on ethical

grounds, in addition to refusing collusion with students who have connections with the

admissions office. With these goals, it is possible to ensure that higher education is truly more

accessible to all who may seek it.

 Katch 8

Works Cited

Avery, Christopher, and Jonathan Levin. "Early Admissions at Selective Colleges."​The

American Economic Review​, vol. 100, no. 5, 2010, pp. 2125-2156​. ProQuest​.

Barta Moreno, Pamela. "The History of Affirmative Action Law and its Relation to

College Admission." Journal of College Admission.179 (2003): 14-21. ProQuest. 24 Oct. 2018 .

Fuller, Matthew. ​A History of Financial Aid to Students​. Vol. 44, Journal of Student

Financial Aid, 2014.

Gillen, Andrew, Robert B. Archibald, and David H. Feldman. "Bennett Hypothesis

2.0/Reply." Regulation Fall 2016: 2-5. ProQuest. 24 Oct. 2018.

Karen, David “‘Achievement’ and ‘Ascription’ in Admission to an Elite College: A

Political-Organizational Analysis.” Sociol Forum (1991) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01114397

Rab, Lisa. “Does the No. 1 High School in America Practice Discrimination?”

Washingtonian​, 4 May 2017, www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-a

merica-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/.

"Regents of the University of California v. Bakke." ​Oyez,​ 24 Oct. 2018,

www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811.

“Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No.

15-1823 (1st Cir. 2015).” ​Justia Law​, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/1

5-1823/15-1823-2015-12-09.html. Accessed 24 Oct. 2018.

“Tuition and Fees and Room and Board over Time - Trends in Higher Education - The

College Board.” https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-fees-room

-and-board-over-time. Accessed 24 Oct. 2018.