Inequality and Access to Higher Education

Abstract

While the United States offers a diverse array of options for postsecondary education, not all students find that the system is equally accessible. The factors that influence college access are complex and have varied over time. However, there is a consistently strong connection between socioeconomic status and one's ability to gain admission to a college or university. Programs to improve accessibility have been successful to a point, but obstacles still exist in a society where college is an option for all. This article reviews the sociological and educational research on higher education accessibility.

Overview

In the United States, there are thousands of institutions of higher learning, including public and private four-year colleges and universities, two-year community colleges, and a plethora of trade and technical schools. These schools provide a rich array of options for students who want to pursue postsecondary education. However, despite the many options available, not all students who would like to attend college do so, and not all students are able to matriculate at the college of their first choice. Why is this the case? What are the factors that make college inaccessible for some, and how does institutional selectivity reflect or perpetuate societal inequalities? These are some of the questions that sociological and educational researchers examine when investigating the topic of inequality and access to higher education.

What Are the Variables?. The answers to these questions, like all questions related to human-oriented fields, are complex and vary over time. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to identify one factor or set of factors that always determines whether someone gets into college or is denied an academic slot. Rather, researchers recognize that individual, organizational, and macrolevel conditions are all potentially positive or negative factors influencing whether students matriculate. In a meta-analysis of 114 articles published in six major sociological and education journals over thirty-one years, McDonough and Fann (2007) identified the most common variables investigators have looked at when exploring college access. At the individual level, researchers study race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, culture, family, community, student status, peers, and geography. Organizational factors are those that cause schools to produce environments supporting college attendance. Studies in this category examine high school policies and procedures, curricula, the influence of high school counselors and teachers, and availability and quality of outreach programs. Finally, field level studies explore the sociopolitical climate and include such items as federal and state level policies around financial aid, affirmative action, and accountability. These studies also look at how the media, professional organizations and public and private institutions influence one another and in turn, student behavior.

The Influence of Socioeconomic Status. Of all of these factors, the one that consistently seems to affect college attendance is socioeconomic status (SES). Socioeconomic status is often classified according to two criteria: parents' income and parents' level of education. In general, the higher the level of parental income and education, the more likely it is that their children will attend college. From a financial perspective, it might seem like common sense that because college tuition is increasingly expensive, those families with better jobs (as a result of education) and more money would be able to pay the costs of college. But the impact of socioeconomic status is more complex, beginning with lifestyle choices that more educated parents make from the time their children are born. To name just a few: parents with higher SES generally choose to live in communities with schools that promote high academic standards at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. These schools are more likely to be staffed with highly qualified teachers and counselors and are more likely to have a climate that assumes children will attend college. Since attending schools that have a strong college preparatory curriculum is often cited as a factor supporting college attendance, high SES parents use their economic means to place their children in an environment favoring educational achievement.

But educated parents do not leave the business of getting to college to the schools alone. Because these parents are familiar with the steps required to apply for admissions, they are more likely to help children directly by discussing college options and career goals and by saving money early. These behaviors tend to encourage their children to have better attitudes about education, to attain better academic skills and test scores, and to be more successful when they apply. On the flip side, in communities where few parents have attended college and incomes are lower, children may not be given as many opportunities to learn about higher education. Although schools may be staffed with quality teachers and counselors, perceptions and attitudes toward education and the opportunities for children, it may be negatively affected by class-based perceptions that college is unnecessary or unattainable because of costs.

Habitus. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu described this social-psychological factor as a product of habitus. Habitus is defined as "a common set of subjective, internalized, class-based perceptions that shape an individual's expectations, attitudes, and aspirations in a non-rational, unconscious way" (McDonough & Calderone, 2006, p. 1704). In short, when individuals expect a negative outcome, they may produce behaviors that create a negative outcome.

Examples of the kinds of behaviors that occur in a climate where college attendance is not expected can be witnessed in the advice counselors sometimes provide to low-income or minority students. For example, counselors may steer students into non-academic tracks because they do not view them as college-worthy, or they may encourage students to apply to community college instead of a four-year private or public university because they have predetermined that four-year tuition would be beyond the student's means (Corwin, Venegas, Oliveraz, & Colyar, 2004; McDonough & Calderone, 2006; McDonough & Fann, 2007). The impact of a non-college climate can also affect individual student aspirations. Stanton, Salazar, and Dornbusch noted that when students in such a climate do not have access to information about college and when they perceive discrimination, they are likely to eliminate themselves from the college application process (as cited in Corwin, et. al., 2004).

Further Insights

As an antidote to barriers such as those mentioned above, a number of federal policies and interventions have been implemented over time. Three of these major interventions include federal financial aid, the establishment of community colleges, and affirmative action programs.

Financial Aid. One of the first major financial aid programs was implemented following World War II. The 1944 Serviceman's Readjustment Act, known as the G.I. Bill, granted funds for postsecondary education to soldiers returning from the war. The program dramatically increased the number of first-generation college attendees and has been credited, along with the other programs, with contributing to one of the greatest expansions of higher education access in American history (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006).

Current Trends. The effectiveness of financial aid has been reduced by a number of trends and in some cases, has itself been found to be a barrier to college access. The first trend is that states, in the twenty-first century, have significantly reduced funding for higher education. This has been driven in part by the simultaneous rise in health care costs. In order to cover the shortfall from state funding, universities and colleges have raised tuition. However, allocations of money to federal financial aid programs have remained relatively flat. Thus, students are facing higher costs without a comparable increase in financial aid (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006). The result is that more students, especially low-income students, have unmet financial aid needs, and more students are graduating with high levels of debt. As perceptions grow that college is unaffordable, more students are choosing not to attend.

A second trend is that colleges are not always directing financial aid to the most financially needy students. In a competitive environment where colleges are ranked according to their selectivity and resources, schools naturally want to attract the best and brightest students. Thus, some schools are awarding funds based on merit instead of need. Because of the relative advantages that high SES students have in obtaining higher levels of academic achievement, this practice often results in the advantaged gaining more advantages and those who need assistance going without (Reich, 2000). Finally, the enormity of the financial aid program has resulted in a system that a report by the Spellings' Commission once called "confusing, complex, inefficient, duplicative and frequently does not direct aid to those who need it" (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006, p. 3). The report also called for consolidating and streamlining twenty different federal programs that provide direct financial aid or tax benefits to individuals.

Community Colleges. The first community colleges were established in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, one of their primary missions was to provide the first step on the way toward a baccalaureate degree (Dougherty & Kienzel, 2007). Community colleges did this by providing courses with credit that students could then transfer to a four-year institution. Many community colleges had, and still have, open door admissions to ensure access. They also frequently offer remedial courses to help students who need to gain missing skills. Like financial aid, community colleges have had many positive impacts. They have brought more students into the educational system, and their effects are felt across generations. In a study of educational achievements of three generations over thirty years in New York City, Attwell and Lavin (2007) chronicled the effects of increased access to college on low-income women and minority students. Focusing on students who entered community college as a result of open door policies, they found dramatically positive results. When women go to college, they reported, their incomes are higher, and their children are more likely to succeed in school and pursue their own university educations.

The community college mission has diversified to offer more occupational and continuing education courses, and their cost remains considerably lower than four-year institutions. Yet there are concerns that community colleges have reached their capacity and cannot fulfill increasing demands. Furthermore, some point to declining transfer rates and high attrition rates and question whether these institutions are doing all that they can to help students earn a higher level degree (Doughtery & Kienzel, 2007; Rosenbaum, 2007; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006). In 2015, President Barack Obama introduced a plan to provide free tuition for community-college students—under this plan, the federal government would be responsible for 75 percent of the cost, while states would be on the hook for the remaining 25 percent. The plan, which would have required congressional and state support to be implemented, has a model in Tennessee, which supplies tuition to community-college students in its state (Song, 2015). Oregon and Minnesota subsequently created free community-college programs and at least ten additional states introduced similar legislation (NCSL, 2016).

The concerns expressed about the effectiveness of community colleges partly reflect ideological views and shifts occurring within the higher education system. On the one hand, the traditional US college system has been a hierarchical one, with universities and colleges ranked into tiers according to their size, selectivity, and access to resources, among other factors. Top-tier universities, such as Ivy League schools, have traditionally been prized for offering increased career and educational opportunities. The value of a degree from such an institution is not just the skills one acquires but also the social networking opportunities one is exposed to (Karen, 2007; Reich, 2000). Because prestigious schools have historically commanded many resources, in discussions of equity and access, researchers have questioned whether students from low-income and minority backgrounds are being given the opportunity to attend such institutions at the same rate as socially and economically advantaged students (Astin & Oseguera, 2004). Furthermore, because the economic value of a baccalaureate degree has traditionally been higher than an associate degree, one of the prevailing assumptions of educational equity and access research has been that getting a baccalaureate degree should be a goal. Thus, when community colleges do not appear to be leading students toward a four-year school, they appear to be failing their students.

Current Trends. New trends may challenge some of these assumptions and shift how access and community colleges are viewed. One trend is that the demographics of the college-attending population are changing. Many adults find they need continuing education in order to compete in a changing economy. Thus, many individuals go back to school or start school at older ages. These students do not necessarily seek a prestigious residential institution, but one that is affordable and accessible during the time that they work. Thus, more students are signing up for online learning courses or are attending smaller, private institutions that are closer to home (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006). Furthermore, because there are more highly qualified students than there are slots at a limited number of highly prestigious institutions, many bright students are attending second- or third-tier schools or community colleges. This, in turn, raises the prestige of those institutions and the relative value of their degrees (Hebel, 2004). One effect of this trend may be that instead of being merely a stepping stone, community colleges may one day be perceived as valuable educational assets on their own.

Affirmative Action. Historically, African Americans and minority students have been underrepresented in US colleges and universities. In 1965, on the heels of desegregation and within the context of the civil rights movement, affirmative action was established with the goal of eradicating the effects of decades of discrimination. Affirmative action allowed schools to consider race as a factor in the admissions process. In other words, given two equally qualified candidates in terms of school rank, GPA, test scores, etc. who are of different races, a school could choose to award admission to the student who is underrepresented in the school environment in order to ensure a diver student body. Affirmative action was written on the principle of equity, that schools and society had the responsibility to ensure equitable access to education for all members of society until the effects of discrimination had been erased (Renner & Moore, 2004).

In the 1990s, some people began to argue that affirmative action was no longer needed. Because they believed that discrimination was no longer prevalent in society, they said colleges and universities should move to a "color-blind" admissions process. The controversy over affirmative action reached the Supreme Court in 2003 when the Court upheld the University of Michigan's right to use race in the admissions process in order to achieve a diverse student body. The argument for diversity, which was written by Patricia Gurin as part of the litigation, set forth a new rationale for Affirmative Action. This rationale was based on the argument that one of the primary goals of a university is to create the best possible learning environment for students that will prepare them for participation in a pluralistic, democratic society. Providing original data analysis, Gurin (1999) showed that students who engaged in a diverse learning environment developed long-lasting behaviors that fit with this mission. In terms of access, the decision allows schools to continue to work to increase opportunities for students of low-income and minority backgrounds. In 2006, citizens of Michigan voted to make affirmative action illegal in the public sector. However, in 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision; nonetheless, in an appeal to the Supreme Court, in the case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was upheld (Liptak, 2014).

The issue was again brought to the Supreme Court with Fisher v. University of Texas, which allowed race to be considered among many factors determining college admissions. In the case, Abigail Fisher, a white college applicant, alleged that her application was rejected even though she was more qualified than some minority students who were accepted. Arguments related back to upholding the Grutter v. Bollinger ruling of 2003. The case was vacated and remanded in 2013. In 2016, the Court held that the university's program was constitutional under the equal protection clause.

Viewpoints

At the sociopolitical level, the existence of federal financial aid, multiple community colleges and affirmative action policies have done much to increase access to higher education, but obstacles to college for all still exist. One aspect of the discussion which sociologists theoretically address, but which often does not factor into political discussions, is whether society can or needs to support a populace that is completely college-educated.

Socialization theories and allocation theories are two categories of theory that attempt to explain how education affects society. Socialization theories posit that schooling provides individuals with the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that enable them to be successful in modern society. These theories state that education enables society to expand and become more complex by helping to create new roles and institutions. Thus, education is viewed as a transformative force that will ultimately lead to a more complex and diversified state, which may in turn mean more equality for all. On the other hand, allocation theories present the idea that the purpose of school is to select, sort, and allocate individuals into roles of society where the roles are held constant. This theory states that individuals learn to behave in certain ways because of the expectations of the people around them. The role of the school is to shape an individual's knowledge and skills as well as his or her identity and relative status in society. Educational labels play an important role in this allocation process both for the student and for the nonstudent, who is relegated to a passive role in the society. Allocation theories do not assert that education eradicates social inequalities but that they maintain them (Meyer, 2007).

Higher education in the United States offers many choices for postsecondary education. Programs and policies have been implemented throughout US history to encourage college attendance and increase its accessibility. Nevertheless, obstacles must still be overcome before the system can be considered accessible to all. Expensive tuitions and fees, rising competitiveness of admissions processes, and high levels of student debt remain some of the most prominent issues hindering access to college educations.

Terms & Concepts

Affirmative Action: Policy implemented to eradicate the effects of years of discrimination by granting schools and employers the right to use race in admissions and employment decisions.

Allocation Theories: A set of theories which state that schooling functions as a selector and sorter in society, assigning individuals to roles based on their number of years and type of education.

The Civil Rights Movement: A movement in the 1950s and 1960s in which African Americans sought to achieve greater equality in U.S. society.

Habitus: A term used to describe a set of sociopsychological perceptions that are internalized, class-based and which shape how an individual perceives and behaves in the world.

G.I. Bill (1944 Serviceman's Readjustment Act): This post-World War II federal program provided financial aid for returning soldiers to attend postsecondary education.

Socialization Theories: A set of theories which state that schools provide individuals with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that enable them to succeed and change modern society.

Socioeconomic Status (SES): A measure of an individual's class based on social and economic factors such as years of education completed and income level.

Bibliography

Alon, S. (2014). Continuing to build a theory of inequality in higher education: Claims, evidence, and future directions. American Sociological Review, 79(4), 817–824. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=97931842&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Aniko, K., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Buschini, F., & Chatard, A. (2012). The Influence of Education on Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: The Role of the Policy's Strength. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 42 , 387–413. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=71545915

Astin, A., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining "equity" of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27 , 321-341.

Attewell, P., & Lavin, D.E. (2007). Passing the torch. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Corwin, Z., Venegas, K., Oliveraz, P., & Colyar, J. (2004). School counsel: How appropriate guidance affects educational equity. Conference Papers of the American Sociological Association 2004 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15929296&site=ehost-live

Dew, J. R. (2012). The Future of American Higher Education. World Future Review (World Future Society), 4 , 7–13. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=85236415

Dougherty, K. J., & Kienzel, G. S. (2007). It's not enough to get through the open door: Inequalities by social background in transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges. In A.R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of Education: A critical reader (pp. 267-290). New York: Routledge.

Gurin, P. (1999). Selections from the compelling need for diversity in higher education, Expert reports in defense of the University of Michigan. Equity & Excellence in Education, 32 , 36-62.

Hebel, S. (2004). No room in the class. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50 . Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13737653&site=ehost-live

Karen, D. (2007). Changes in access to higher education in the United States, 1980-1992. In A.R. Sadovnik (Ed.). Sociology of Education: A critical reader (pp. 251-265). New York: Routledge.

Lee, J. (2016). Does merit-based aid improve college affordability? Testing the Bennett hypothesis in the era of merit-based aid. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 46(2), 51-78. Retrieved December 28, 2016 from EBSCO online database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=117847870&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Liptak, Adam. (2014, Apr 22). Court backs Michigan on affirmative action. New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from nytimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/us/supreme-court-michigan-affirmative-action-ban.html?5%Fr=1.

McDonough, P., & Calderone, S. (2006). The meaning of money: Perceptual differences between college counselors and low-income families about college costs and financial aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49 , 1703-1718. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21810279&site=ehost-live

McDonough, P., & Fann, A. J. (2007). The study of inequality. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of Higher Education (pp. 53-93). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Meyer, J. W. (2007). The effects of education as an institution. In A.R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of Education: A critical reader (pp. 115-130). New York: Routledge.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2016, April 25). Free community college. Retrieved December 28, 2016 from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/free-community-college.aspx

Porter, J. R. (2006). Financial strains keep millions out of college, panel says. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 . Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22478120&site=ehost-live

Reich, R. B. (2000). How selective colleges heighten inequality. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 ( 3), B7-B11. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=3536878&site=ehost-live

Renner, K. E., & Moore, T. (2004). The more things change, the more they stay the same: The elusive search for racial equity in higher education. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 4 , 227-241. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15181167&site=ehost-live

Rosenbaum, J. E. (2007). College-for-all: Do students understand what college demands? In A.R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of Education: A critical reader (pp. 291-308). New York: Routledge.

Sabbagh, D. (2011). The paradox of decategorization: deinstitutionalizing race through race-based affirmative action in the United States. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 34 , 1665–1681. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65455987

Song, Jason. (2014, Jan 14). The nuts and bolts of Obama's community college plan. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from latimes.com. http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-obama-tuition-20150114-story.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. Higher Education: A report of the commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). College affordability and completion: Ensuring a pathway to opportunity. Retrieved December 28, 2016 from https://www.ed.gov/college.

Suggested Reading

Attewell, P., & Lavin, D.E. (2007). Passing the torch. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Broton, K., & Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). The dark side of college (un)affordability: Food and housing insecurity in higher education. Change, 48(1), 16-25. Retrieved December 28, 2016 from EBSCO online database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=113744675&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Gilbert, C., & 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 October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=86940421

Gumport, P. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Herring, C., & Henderson, L. (2012). From Affirmative Action to Diversity: Toward a Critical Diversity Perspective. Critical Sociology (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 38 , 629–643. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82380294

Ross, Terris, et al. (2012, Aug). Higher education: gaps in access and persistence study. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012046.pdf.

Sadovnik, A. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology of education: A critical reader. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stich, A. E., & Freie, C. (2016). The working classes and higher education: Inequality of access, opportunity and outcome. New York, NY: Routledge.