The Role of Higher Education in Social Mobility

Abstract

Most Americans expect the nation's colleges and universities to promote the goal of social mobility to make it possible for anyone with ability and motivation to succeed. But according to Robert Haveman and Timothy Smeeding, income-related gaps both in access to and in success in higher education are large and growing. In the top-tier colleges and universities, almost three-quarters of the entering class is from the highest socioeconomic quartile. The pool of qualified youth is far greater than the number admitted and enrolled; hence America's top colleges could enroll more moderate- and low-income students without lowering their selection standards. Higher-income parents make enormous efforts to ensure their children's academic success, while children of poor parents begin the "college education game" later and with fewer resources. Students in poor and minority neighborhoods are less well prepared academically; ill prepared to select colleges, apply for admission, and secure acceptance; and poorly informed about the cost of attending college and the availability of needs-based financial aid. Sharply rising college prices during the 1980s and 1990s, together with the growing inequality of family income, have raised the cost of attending college far more for low-income students than for well-to-do students. Financial aid has risen more slowly, and the share targeted on low-income students has been falling. The authors offer bold policy recommendations to increase educational opportunities for low- and middle-income students. These involve the development of financing structures that will increase access for students from lower-income families. Public institutions could price tuition close to real costs and use added revenues to provide direct student aid for students from low-income families. Federal subsidies to students who attend wealthy institutions could be capped, with the savings redirected to students attending less well-endowed schools, both public and private. Finally, federal and state governments could redirect to lower-income students the financial support they now provide colleges and universities.

Looking Beyond Enrollment: The Causal Effect of Need-Based Grants on College Access, Persistence, and Graduation

“…Gaps in college degree attainment by socioeconomic status are even more pronounced. Among the high school graduating class of 1992, only 7 percent of students from families in the lowest socioeconomic quartile completed a four-year college degree by age 26, compared with 51 percent of students from families in the highest socioeconomic quartile (Haveman & Smeeding, 2006).…”

Aspects of Graduateness in Computing Students' Narratives

“…[9] Other studies have explored claims of university as a means for social mobility. [25,41,60] In the UK, the discussion about the effect of university is often framed in terms of "graduateness". According to Glover et al, graduateness can be "defined as the effect on knowledge, skills and attitudes, of having undertaken an undergraduate degree…."…”

effect of learning communities on retention of Pell Grant eligible students in private higher education

“…Concurrently, over the parallel period from 2001-2010, Knapp, Kelly-Reid, and Ginder (2010) detailed that the price of college attendance over that time rose anywhere from 30% to 47% dependent on the type of institution. While cost is one factor under investigation by current literature, other studies (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011;Davis 2003;Haveman & Smeeding 2006;Page & Scott-Clayton, 2016) have suggested that institutional practice may have also played a direct role in these enrollment trends. Even after low SES students have overcome the hurdle of enrolling in college, they are met with the challenge of remaining enrolled through to completion and have higher rates of attrition than do their peers (Chen & DesJardins, 2008).…”

“…Hearn's research was extended directly by Karen (2002) who found specifically that low socioeconomic background, when controlling for all academic factors, directly affected post-secondary destination. Beyond Karen (2002), many studies (Bastedo & Jaquette, 2011;Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006;Haveman & Smeeding, 2006;Lovenheim & Reynolds, 2011) went on to use the NELS data as well as other nationally representative data sets. Almost all found an increasing, or, at the very least, a steady rate of stratification across socioeconomic background by institutional type in the United States.…”

“…These studies suggested that it was getting harder for low SES students to enroll in selective higher education as a whole, and that the institution of higher education in the United States was becoming further stratified despite the high degree of total national enrollment in postsecondary educational programs (Alon, 2009;Baum, Ma, & College Board Advocacy & Policy Center, 2011;Curs, 2008;Davis, 2003;Davis et al, 2013;Haveman & Smeeding, 2006;Kim, 2010). This study intended to investigate a selective, high cost of attendance institution where approximately 25% of the annual incoming freshmen class was Pell Grant eligible.…”