Access to Higher Education

Access to higher education is an essential aspect of social equity and economic opportunity, particularly in the United States, where historically, initiatives like the land-grant movement aimed to democratize education. Despite significant advancements in access through programs like the G.I. Bill and the Higher Education Act, contemporary challenges are emerging that threaten this progress. Rising tuition costs, reduced state funding, and the withdrawal of affirmative action policies have been cited as factors leading to an "access crisis," disproportionately affecting underrepresented groups, including low-income and minority students.

Educational scholars emphasize that access should not only be about entering higher education but also about ensuring equitable opportunities within the system, including access to prestigious programs and necessary support services. Barriers such as inadequate academic preparation and financial constraints continue to hinder many students, particularly those from low-income or first-generation backgrounds. Outreach initiatives, such as federal TRIO programs, aim to mitigate these disparities by providing resources and support to help at-risk students navigate the path to higher education. Overall, increased focus on both access and equity is crucial to fostering a more inclusive higher education landscape that can meet the diverse needs of the population.

Published in: 2021

By: Clapp, Marlene

Subject Terms

Access to Higher Education

Abstract

Starting with the land-grant movement, U.S. higher education has been marked by various milestones in the drive to ensure greater access to postsecondary education for the citizenry (Gándara, Horn, & Orfield, 2005; Kerr, 2001). However, some higher education scholars are sounding alarms that what progress toward greater access has been made is now being reversed (Gardner, 2004; Valentine, 2004). Arguments have been made that underrepresented students have been particularly affected by the access crisis, as factors such as rising tuitions and lack of adequate academic preparation seem to disproportionately impact them (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003; Choy, 2002; Gardner, 2004; Hoffman, 2003; Valentine, 2004).

Overview

According to Valentine (2004), "American democracy has been characterized by policies that reflect a national commitment to allowing all qualified and motivated Americans to receive post-secondary education" (pp. 179–180). Access, particularly to public forms of higher education, is generally perceived as an informal right of American citizens. Bastedo and Gumport (2003) stated that "equality of opportunity for all students to attend public higher education in their state, without regard to their background or preparation, is a foundational principle of higher education policymaking in the United States" (p. 341). Scholars have contended that there are dire consequences when access to higher education is threatened. For instance, Dalton (2000) stressed that "a population denied access to college carries significant economic and social costs and ultimately places our nation at risk" (¶ 1). Costs can take the form of public assistance as well as health and social services (Dalton, 2000).

The push for universal access in American higher education originated with the land grant movement of the 1860s. Mainly an agricultural nation at the time, the movement facilitated access to some form of higher education for the citizenry at large, such as farming families (Kerr, 2001). According to Kerr (2001), in an increasingly democratic nation the land grant movement served "less the perpetuation of an elite class and more the creation of a relatively classless society, with the doors of opportunity open to all through education" (p. 36). Gándara, Horn, and Orfield (2005) identified several other events in the history of American higher education that have contributed to improving access. These included the G.I. Bill, the 1965 Higher Education Act, the advent of college access programs, the rise of affirmative action, and growth in the higher education system during the 1960s and 1970s. Kerr (2001) similarly added that during the time after World War II, the passage of the G.I. Bill positioned the universal access movement further along by making higher education a possibility for many students who were the first in their families to attend college (Kerr, 2001).

Despite historical gains in access to postsecondary education, some higher education scholars are sounding the alarm to signal a crisis of opportunity. Gándara et al. (2005), for example, proposed that there is now an access crisis in American higher education that has been fueled by lack of state support for higher education, rising tuitions, an end to affirmative action in some states, and decreased capacity to accommodate students. Overall, Gándara et al. (2005) stressed that the current higher education system is "inadequate to meet the expanding need for postsecondary education in the 21st century" (p. 255). According to Dalton (2000), measures must be taken to ensure that all young people succeed and particular attention should be given to students in low-income communities.

Further Insights

According to Choy (2002), five steps are necessary for a student to enter a four-year college or university. These steps include the following:

Aspiring to college,
Preparing academically for college,
Taking the necessary entrance exams (such as the SAT or ACT),
Applying to college, and
Enrolling in college.

Along the way to entering a four-year higher education institution, the most students are lost early in the journey — either because they do not aspire to a four-year degree or are not academically prepared to enter a four-year institution (Choy, 2002).

Regardless of whether or not an overall crisis of opportunity exists, access to higher education has been particularly difficult for certain subsets of the population. These include underrepresented students, immigrants, and international students and scholars.

Underrepresented Students. Underrepresented students are first and foremost impacted by factors limiting access. For instance, Valentine (2004) expressed concern that low-income students would be particularly affected by the access crisis in higher education. It has been proposed that because of increased tuitions, these students might either forego higher education completely or else struggle to achieve a postsecondary degree due to the need to delay entry, work more hours while enrolled, or take on vast debt (Gardner, 2004; Valentine, 2004). Final recommendations from the U.S. Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education actually included increasing access to higher education by providing more aid to low-income students (Pluviose, 2006).

While great concern exists for low-income students, when students are the first in their families to attend college they can also encounter obstacles to postsecondary access. Using data from a series of longitudinal studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Choy (2002) found that, along with family income, level of parental education affects the likelihood of a student enrolling in postsecondary education. For instance, as both family income and level of parental education increase, the chances that a high school graduate will immediately enroll in a four-year higher education institution after graduation also increase (Choy, 2002). Indeed, students who have parents who both completed college are more likely to remain on course and complete all the steps necessary to enter a four-year institution (Choy, 2002).

Access to higher education for underrepresented minority students is also an issue. Ward (2006) offered that "comprehensive strategies are critical in addressing the problem of the achievement gap for low-income minority students" (p. 67). Overall, it seems that scholars are particularly concerned about access issues for low-income students, but there is indication that the struggles low-income students face regarding access can be compounded when they are also of minority and/or first-generation immigrant status. Hoffman (2003) indicated that, along with retention and graduation rates, access correlates "strikingly with race, income, and family educational background" (¶ 7).

Reaching Underrepresented Students. Various outreach efforts have been put in place to help underrepresented students gain better access to higher education. Choy (2002) indicated simply that the support of "parents, peers, and school personnel can help at-risk students overcome a variety of obstacles to college access and persistence" (p. 15). Ward (2006) also noted that federal programs have been initiated to help improve access to higher education for underrepresented minorities and low-income students. While limited in their scope, the TRIO programs are among the better known federal programs and reflect three major federal initiatives:

Upward Bound,
Educational Talent Search (ETS), and
Student Support Services (SSS) (Ward, 2006).

Upward Bound provides a four to six-week college bridge experience for low-income and minority first-generation high school students in order to help facilitate their successful transition to higher education (Ward, 2006). Meanwhile, ETS provides low-income and minority high school students with needed counseling services (e.g., academic, career, financial) to help them graduate from high school and successfully enter postsecondary education (Ward, 2006). Finally, SSS provides both financial and academic assistance to low-income and minority undergraduates (Ward, 2006).

A federal program called GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) is intended for fill gaps left by the TRIO programs (Ward, 2006). Specifically, the initiative targets "the coupling of systemic school reform with early intervention for middle school students" (p. 59). Under the initiative, school districts and universities must partner together to work toward curriculum standards that adequately prepare students for college (Ward, 2006). Indeed, Choy (2002) determined that some of the effect of parental education on access, for instance, can be mitigated by pursuing a rigorous high school curriculum that includes advanced mathematics courses (i.e., those beyond algebra II).

Earning College Credit in High School. In discussing access issues for underrepresented students, Hoffman (2003) additionally highlighted programs that enable students to earn college credit while still in high school. Such programs are part of a new policy shift that Hoffman (2003) indicated will help with "getting more young people into and through postsecondary education" (¶ 1). However, while programs like these are no longer limited to privileged students it remains to be seen just how many underrepresented students will benefit from such programs (Hoffman, 2003). For instance, there can be differential access to college-credit programs because underrepresented students' participation in such programs can be curtailed, for instance, by the fees to participate in such programs in some states as well as the offerings available at the high schools they attend (Hoffman, 2003). There are four basic ways in which students can earn college credit while in high school:

Examination-based college credit,
School-based credit,
College-based credit, and
Virtual-college credit courses.

Immigrants. Gray and Vernez (1996) discussed the wave of new immigrants that have arrived in the United States and noted that they represent a new segment of the population that higher education must serve. However, some contend that higher education institutions overall are already struggling to provide access to students (Gray & Vernez, 1996). Meanwhile, research by Gray and Vernez (1996) actually indicated that immigrants seem to be participating in higher education at a higher rate than native-born students (findings held across all racial and ethnic backgrounds). They concluded that "institutional policies and practices have not disproportionately depressed access and academic success among immigrants vis-à-vis native-born students" (Gray & Vernez, 1996, ¶ 25).

International Students & Scholars. Starobin (2006) discussed access to U.S. higher education for visiting international students and scholars in a post–September 11 environment. The author offered that the implementation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) has been perceived as unwelcoming due to its more stringent oversight of international students and visitors (Starobin, 2006). Starobin stressed that "intensity of the threat of global terrorism should not compromise the contributions of international students and scholars to the nation's academic and scientific advancement and economic prosperity" (p. 70).

Viewpoints

What is "Access?". Adelman (2007) offered that there are at least four definitions of college access currently in use including,

Threshold access,
Recurrent access,
Convenient access, and
Distributional access.

Adelman (2007) chose to concentrate on threshold access, which focuses on participation regardless of student characteristics, enrollment patterns, or institution type, stating that other definitions of access "contaminate the focus of the [access] question" (¶ 12).

Yet Gándara et al. (2005) argued the case for recurrent access and stated that access to higher education should not just be about attaining access to some form of higher education but rather to "the full range of opportunities in higher education" (p. 260). For example, they argued that there should be assurances that those who wish to advance their education beyond the undergraduate level and attend medical or law school have access to such opportunities. The authors noted how the enrollment of underrepresented minorities fell by 50 percent at the University of California's medical schools after the use of affirmative action by public institutions was banned in the state (Gándara et al., 2005).

Meanwhile, Bastedo and Gumport (2003) urge support for distributional access and framed access to also include the types of academic programs that are available to students after they are admitted to a college or university. The authors offered that "policies that differentiate academic programs and students by level contribute to the stratification of student opportunity within state systems" (p. 342). They discussed how the end result of academic program reviews, for instance, often disproportionately impacts women and minorities because the programs that are eliminated tend to be low-status and are dominated by such students (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Additionally, place-bound students, who are more likely to be minorities from low-income families, would be particularly impacted by the lack of comprehensive program offerings at their local public college (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). Overall, the authors stressed that students today "compete for access to a stratified array of institutions that offer different educational opportunities and prestige" (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003, p. 344).

Is There a Crisis?. According to Adelman (2007), there is not so much an access problem in higher education as there is a participation (i.e., persistence) and success (i.e., graduation) problem. Based on longitudinal data findings from the Department of Education, Adelman (2007) argued that "our nation's access problem is hardly of crisis dimensions" (¶ 14). For example, there was an overall (threshold) access rate of 79 percent for a recent cohort of students who either graduated high school on time and started postsecondary education immediately or entered postsecondary education by their mid-twenties (Adelman, 2007). Further, he found that disparities by race and ethnicity were fairly minor. Yet, disparities by family income were more notable, as 91 percent of on-time high school graduates in the top third of the family income range entered postsecondary education while only 69 percent of those in the bottom third of the family income range did (Adelman, 2007). Meanwhile, arguing on the side of distributional access, Hoffman (2003) stated that underrepresented students like low-income and minority students are more likely to attend two-year colleges and less selective four-year colleges than other students. Bastedo and Gumport (2003) similarly stressed, "Minority and low-income students are less likely to be admitted into the highest-prestige programs in the system. If minority and low-income students are disproportionately represented in lower-level programs and schools, it remains questionable whether equitable access has truly been provided" (p. 355).

Factors Affecting Access. For the most part there is agreement among higher education scholars that there is an access crisis in postsecondary education. Valentine (2004) lamented that "gains in access to higher education made in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s are being reversed" (p. 180). According to estimates from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004), in the fall of 2003, "at least 250,000 prospective students were shut out of higher education due to rising tuition or cutbacks in admissions and course offerings" (p. 1). The curtailed opportunity in 2003 was largely due to state funding cuts that disproportionately affected higher education (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004). Other factors that have been identified as contributing to decreased access include an increase in the number of students seeking a college education, federal policies that favor loans over grant aid, and increases to merit-based aid at the expense of need-based aid (Gardner, 2004; Valentine, 2004). According to Valentine (2004), "Reductions in state funding, tuition increases, increased demand, and flat growth in need-based financial assistance make college less affordable and less accessible for many students" (p. 182).

Inadequate Academic Preparation. Academic preparation is also widely perceived as a major factor affecting access to higher education. According to Gándara et al. (2005), "It is impossible to discuss issues of access without also attending to the problems that emanate from inequities in the K-12 sector" (p. 257). The authors pointed to various research studies that have shown how K-12 preparation affects access to college (e.g., likelihood of attending certain types of higher education institutions or of a successful transition to college). Adelman (2007) also seemed to stress that low-income students' entry into postsecondary education is curtailed by issues of academic preparation (i.e., opportunities to take challenging courses and student engagement with those courses). Further, final recommendations from the U. S. Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education included increasing access to higher education by working with the K-12 system to help ensure that students will be ready for postsecondary education and able to take advantage of it (Pluviose, 2006).

Issues with Financial Aid. Haycock and Gerald (2007) recognized that factors such as inadequate K-12 preparation and federal and state policies that limit financial assistance to needy students have contributed to access problems in higher education. At the same time, the authors also stressed that colleges and universities themselves must shoulder some of the responsibility for access problems. For instance, both public and private higher education institutions have awarded more merit-based aid at the expense of need-based financial aid. They noted that rather than helping needy students to cover college costs, financial aid funding is "increasingly used to help institutions buy their way up the college rankings ladder" (Haycock & Gerald, 2007, p. 15). This type of a trend works against the equalizing effect that financial aid can have for low-income students. According to Choy (2002), "The price of attending college is still a significant obstacle for students from low- and middle-income families, but financial aid is an equalizer, to some degree" (p. 17).

Terms & Concepts

College-Based Credit: Also known as dual enrollment programs, in which high schools students either (a) take courses on a college campus or satellite campus under the direction of college faculty while still enrolled in high school, or (b) take college-credit courses at their high schools (Hoffman, 2003).

Convenient Access: Entails the ability to enter and reenter into accredited postsecondary institutions at the time and location of one's choosing (Adelman, 2007).

Distributional Access: Entails entry into an accredited postsecondary institution that a student either desires to attend and/or is qualified to attend (Adelman, 2007).

Examination-Based College Credit: Includes the Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate programs (Hoffman, 2003).

Immigrants: Foreign-born individuals who may range from being undocumented to a naturalized citizen (Gray & Vernez, 1996).

Recurrent Access: Entails the ability to enter and reenter into accredited postsecondary institutions (e.g., for transfers and for those who seek additional credentials) (Adelman, 2007).

School-Based Credit: Concurrent enrollment is the most typical program in which courses are taught in high schools by high school teachers under the direction of college professors (Hoffman, 2003).

Threshold Access: Entails basic entry into an accredited postsecondary institution (Adelman, 2007).

Underrepresented Students (At-Risk Students): Generally includes students who are the first in their families to attend college (i.e., first-generation students) as well as low-income students and minority students.

Virtual-College Credit Courses: Are college-credit courses that are offered virtually (e.g., to home schoolers or students who have left high school) (Hoffman, 2003).

Bibliography

Adelman, C. (2007). Do we really have a college access problem? Change, 39 , 48–51. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25891955&site=ehost-live

Bastedo, M., & Gumport, P. (2003). Access to what? Mission differentiation and academic stratification in U.S. public higher education. Higher Education, 46 , 341–359. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10755537&site=ehost-live

Choy, S. (2002). Access & persistence: Findings from 10 years of longitudinal research on students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Dalton, R. (2000). Foundations for access. Connection: New England's Journal of Higher Education & Economic Development, 15 , 15–16. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3544644&site=ehost-live

Davis, D. J., Green-Derry, L. C., & Jones, B. (2013). The impact of federal financial aid policy upon higher education access. Journal of Educational Administration & History, 45 , 49–57. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84919179

Drotos, S. M., & Cilesiz, S. (2016). Shoes, dues, and other barriers to college attainment. Education & Urban Society 42(3), 221–244. Retrieved Jan. 3, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=112802179&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Gándara, P., Horn, C., & Orfield, G. (2005). The access crisis in higher education. Educational Policy, 19 , 255–261. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16828417&site=ehost-live

Gardner, S. (2004). Stemming at-riskers' college crises in a recession. Education Digest, 70 , 56–60. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14600042&site=ehost-live

Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. Journal of Higher Education, 84 , 417–443. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86940421

Gray, M., & Vernez, G. (1996). Student access and the 'new' immigrants. Change, 28 , 40–47. Retrieved October 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9610251375&site=ehost-live

Haycock, K., & Gerald, D. (2007). Trend: Shrinking opportunity. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board of Higher Education, 21 , 15–16. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24839389&site=ehost-live

Hoffman, N. (2003). College credit in high school. Change, 35 , 42. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10047047&site=ehost-live

Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning higher education for the 21st-century learner through multi-access learning. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9 , 172–186. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90241774&site=ehost-live

Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). Responding to the crisis in college opportunity. San Jose, CA: Author.

Lipka, S. (2014). More voices call for equity, not just access. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60 , 39. Retrieved November 5, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=97598354&site=ehost-live

Pluviose, D. (2006). Commission's final draft report recommends revamping higher ed curricula. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 23 , 10. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22354223&site=ehost-live

Starobin, S. S. (2006). International students in transition: Changes in access to U.S. higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 114, 63–71. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22456072&site=ehost-live

Toutkoushian, R. K., & Hillman, N. W. (2012). The impact of state appropriations and grants on access to higher education and outmigration. Review of Higher Education, 36 , 51–90. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=82602356

Valentine, D. (2004). Access to higher education: A challenge to social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 40 , 179–184. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17134998&site=ehost-live

Ward, N. (2006). Improving equity and access for low-income and minority youth into institutions of higher education. Urban Education, 41 , 50–70. Retrieved October 9, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19525652&site=ehost-live

Access to Higher Education

On this Page

Subject Terms

Access to Higher Education

Abstract

Overview

Further Insights

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading