The Chronicle of Higher Education just announced that the New York Times is going to start ranking colleges according to how economically diverse they are. It's about time! The top private colleges and universities are increasingly becoming ultra-concentrations of wealthy, connected people getting wealthier and more connected.
Here are more details: http://chronicle.com/...
"Having The New York Times shine light on the fact that an institution has very little economic diversity could have a powerful shaming effect" and be "an important counterweight," said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and a proponent of class-based affirmative action. "Right now," he added, "it’s easier to hide."
I hope Kahlenberg is right. I fear that it will become a curiosity, and no action will ever be considered.
CONSIDER THIS DIARY A CALL TO ARMS, quoting myself:
A real area of reform in this area could be around tax breaks for donations to endowments for schools that don't provide scholarships for a certain percentage of low-income enrollees.
This quote surfaced in a comment on this diary about the travesty college education is becoming:
DIARY: http://www.dailykos.com/...
COMMENT: http://www.dailykos.com/...
As one example of the disjointedness of our higher education system, I find it amazing that UC Berkeley, a top public university, has consistently educated more Pell grantees (http://www2.ed.gov/...) than the entire 8-university Ivy League put together. Talk about relative levels of direct access and public service.....
Below the orange design element that's also used by Princeton to emboss their high-priced diplomas is a list of college endowments (snark, in case you didn't know). The money donated to these colleges is given tax free. It disproportionately goes to help people get educated who really don't need any help -- in addition, of course, to paying faculties and administrators.
Before I get to the endowment stats, which are old data, a few points:
1) "Some people will say, well, in a meritocracy, that's who gets in to these schools." Uh, there is often a reasonably large swath of people who are development admits (not just legacy) who are close to the standards -- as are a lot of others -- but get the nod because of their wealth.
2) Again, to point 1, the reason a lot of people look good on paper to begin with is they've had all the advantages their whole lives. Some people will say you've got to go upstream, earlier into the lives of kids to redress this. I get that. But I still think there must be cases in between where more resources could be dedicated to kids with potential; we're getting better and better at identifying those with such potential.
3) I am not anti-knowledge. I get that these private institutions -- and their typically less wealthy and more broadly society-serving state institutions -- have done a lot to produce knowledge for us. But really? Tax breaks for donations to an institution sitting on $30Bn that educates a miniscule number of underprivileged, gets grants on the back end, etc? Really?
4) I get that the colleges don't carry out their missions through tuition revenues alone, not even close. So donations are a huge element they depend on to function. Nonetheless....
5) The public schools in many states have been having funds cut for years and I get that they depend on endowments to make up the difference. The University of California system (in the state where I live and which I am most familiar with) receives roughly 10% of its support from California these days. That is why they have been trying to supplement income by growing bigger and adding in higher-paying out-of-state students -- and they get criticized for it (in my opinion, unjustly). And that is why they chase donation dollars too, but my god, their endowment per student is dramatically lower than the top privates.
6) I suggest that a relatively easy solution might be look at endowment size per student (not just total endowment size), look at underprivileged students being served, and consider requiring a levy on new endowment monies above a certain size.
7) I know that colleges give scholarships, full-rides, to "diamonds in the rough" -- i.e. students who have amazing stories and credentials and yet overcome. These are great stories. And yet, they get way more attention at top private colleges than actual numbers warrant, in my experience. That's why I am looking forward to actual numbers, such as presented by this imminent ranking.
There really has to be a point where letting this wealth accumulate just to serve the wealthy gets to be too much... NOTE THIS IS OLD DATA, BUT ILLUSTRATIVE (and sorry for the crappy formatting which looks okay until I hit save):
Colleges with the Biggest Endowment Per Student
University Endowment / Student Endowment Total Enrollment
1 Princeton University $1,857,040 $14.05 billion 7,567
2 Yale University $1,436,384 $16.65 billion 11,593
3 Harvard University $1,304,492 $27.56 billion 21,125
4 FW. Olin Coll. of Eng. $1,096,595 $335.6 million 306
5 Pomona College $942,490 $1.46 billion 1,548
6 Stanford University $904,179 $13.85 billion 15,319
7 Swarthmore College $819,183 $1.25 billion 1,525
8 MIT $800,975 $8.32 billion 10,384
9 Amherst College $749,574 $1.39 billion 1,744
10 Grinnel College $749,309 $1.26 Billion 1,688
AND THIS IS ALSO OLD DATA!
http://www.usnews.com/...
School name (state) End of fiscal year 2012 endowment
Harvard University (MA) $30,745,534,000
Yale University (CT) $19,264,289,000
Princeton University (NJ) $17,404,002,000
Stanford University (CA) $17,035,804,000
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $10,149,564,000
Columbia University (NY) $7,654,152,000 4
University of Michigan—Ann Arbor $7,586,547,000
Texas A&M University—College Station $7,032,203,615
University of Pennsylvania $6,754,658,000
Harvard's endowment, to cite the top, is ridiculously large if you think about it. Its balances would dwarf the money balances of many corporate institutions, probably countries. The yearly offtake of its endowment - say 5% of income/endowment balance - is still a ridiculously large figure. And Harvard receives government grants and all sorts of other support on the flip side.
And don't get me started on the ebbing of the Estate Tax!!!