Rewarding Strivers:Rewarding Strivers:Helping Low-Income Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in Students Succeed in

CollegeCollege

Affordability and College Attainment Affordability and College Attainment in Wisconsin Public Higher in Wisconsin Public Higher

EducationEducation

University of Wisconsin - MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin - Madison

Richard D. KahlenbergRichard D. Kahlenberg

July 8, 2011July 8, 2011

*Bachelor’s degree attainment by age 26 for the year 2000. Wealthy refers to students in the top income quartile with at least one parent graduated from college. Low-income refers to students in the bottom income quartile with neither parent graduated from college.

**Bachelor’s degree attainment by age 29 for the year 2003.

Source: National Education Longitudinal Study 1988/2000 data, cited in William Bowen, Matthew Chingos, and Michael McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 21, Figure 2.2. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003, Current Population Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003), 5, Figure 3, available at www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf, retrieved August 24, 2010.

““Great Equalizer” is Broken Great Equalizer” is Broken

Bachelor's Degree Attainment by Age 26 or 29

68%

9%

34.2%

17.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Wealthy Low-Income White Black

Family Socioeconomic Status* Race**

SES Stratification within SES Stratification within Higher EducationHigher Education

Note: Some columns do not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 137, Figure 3.7.

Socioeconomic Distribution at Colleges by Selectivity, 2006

43

2821

148 7 5

31

30

25

20

17

9 9

19

27

29

29

26

21 17

816

25

37

49

83 70

Nopostsecondary

Communitycollege

Less- andnoncompetitive

Competitive Very competitive Highlycompetitive

Most competitive

Pe

rce

nt

Bottom SES quartile Third SES quartile Second SES quartile Top SES quartile

Matters Because Selective Matters Because Selective Institutions Offer Institutions Offer

AdvantagesAdvantages

A.A. Higher SpendingHigher Spending

B.B. Substantial SubsidiesSubstantial Subsidies

C.C. Higher Graduation RatesHigher Graduation Rates

D.D. Higher EarningsHigher Earnings

E.E. Greater Chance at LeadershipGreater Chance at Leadership

Spending by SelectivitySpending by SelectivityPer-student Spending at Colleges, by Selectivity, 2006

$12,000

$92,000

$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

Least-selective Colleges Most Selective Colleges

Per

-stu

den

t S

pen

din

g (

in d

olla

rs)

Note: Selectivity is measured by ranking all colleges according to the national percentile that corresponds with each college’s mean SAT or ACT score. Spending is reported in 2007 dollars.

Source: Caroline M. Hoxby, The Changing Selectivity of American Colleges, NBER Working Paper 15446 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009), 15.

SubsidiesSubsidies

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 149, Figure 3.17. Calculations based on G. C. Winston, Economic Stratification and Hierarchy in U.S. Colleges and Universities, Discussion Paper 58 (Williamstown, Mass.: Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education, Williams College, 2000) http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/dps/dp-58.pdf, retrieved November 11, 2009.

Percentage Paid by Student, by Decile

20%25% 24% 26% 27%

31% 33%39%

52%

77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Top decile Decile 2 Decile 3 Decile 4 Decile 5 Decile 6 Decile 7 Decile 8 Decile 9 Bottomdecile

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Pa

id b

y S

tud

en

t

Higher Graduation RatesHigher Graduation RatesGraduation Rates, by Selectivity and SAT-Equivalent Score

86% 85%

96% 96%

83%

70%

85%90%

71%68%

78% 78%

67%

0%

78%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1000 to 1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 >1300

SAT-Equivalent Score

Per

cen

tag

e o

f In

itia

l A

tten

dee

s W

ho

Gra

du

ate

Tier 1 (highest selectivity) Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 (lowest selectivity)

Data limitations

Data limitations

Note: SAT-equivalent scores are based on SAT scores or equivalent percentile correspondences of ACT scores to SAT equivalence. The correspondence was developed by ETS.

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 151, Table 3.5. Authors’ analysis of survey data from High School and Beyond, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/.

Higher EarningsHigher Earnings

Note: Dollar amounts are in 2007 dollars.

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 149, Figure 3.17. Authors’ calculations from Barron’s Selectivity Rankings, various years; National Education Longitudinal Study: Base Year through Fourth Follow-Up, 1988-2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).

Entry-level Earnings of College Graduates, by Selectivity, 1999

$33,177

$39,880$41,779

$53,817

$37,081

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Community college Less andnoncompetitive

college

Competitive college Very competitivecollege

Most and highlycompetitive college

LeadershipLeadership

Note: Undergraduate population data for the 12 schools came from each institution’s website. All population counts are for 2009-2010, except for those from Yale, Cornell, and Northwestern, which are for 2008-2009.

Source: Thomas Dye, Who’s Running America? (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 148. Current Population Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008), available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2008.html, retrieved August 24, 2010.

Current Students or Graduates of 12 Elite Institutions as a Percentage of Various Populations

0.7%

54%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Current UndergraduateCollege Students

Government Leaders Corporate Leaders

Po

pu

lati

on

Sh

are

Current Students orGraduates of Harvard, Yale,the University of Chicago,Stanford, Columbia, MIT,Cornell, Northwestern,Princeton, Johns Hopkins,the University ofPennsylvania, and Dartmouth

University of Wisconsin – University of Wisconsin – Madison Ranks Poorly on Madison Ranks Poorly on

SES Diversity SES Diversity

Note: Flagships from seven states (CT, KY, LA, NM, NJ, PA, WA) excluded due to problems with data.Source: Kati Haycock, Mary Lynch, and Jennifer Engle, Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities Are Straying from Their Public Mission (Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, 2010), 20, Figure 19.

Percentage of Students Receiving Pell Grants at Selected Public Flagship Universities, 2007

33.0%

20.4%

9.5%13.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

University ofCalifornia -Berkeley

Average forFlagship

Universities in 43States

University ofWisconsin -

Madison

University ofVirginia - Main

Campus

Per

cen

tag

e o

f S

tud

ents

Rec

eivi

ng

Pel

l Gra

nts

41st out of 43 flagships

UW When Account for State UW When Account for State SESSES

Note: Flagships from seven states (CT, KY, LA, NM, NJ, PA, WA) excluded due to problems with data.

Source: Kati Haycock, Mary Lynch, and Jennifer Engle, Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities Are Straying from Their Public Mission (Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, 2010), 20, Figure 19.

__ of __ states

Low-Income Student Access Ratio at Selected Public Flagship Universities, 2007

0.86

0.52

0.30

0.47

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

University ofCalifornia -Berkeley

Average forFlagship

Universities in 43States

University ofWisconsin -

Madison

University ofVirginia - Main

Campus

Lo

w-I

nco

me

Stu

den

t A

cces

s R

atio

30th out of 43 flagships

Low-Income Student Access Ratio =% students receiving Pell grants

in all colleges & universities in the state

% students receiving Pell grants at institution

Good news: Programs to Good news: Programs to Address Stratification Address Stratification through Financial Aidthrough Financial Aid

Note: Number of schools is cumulative.

Source: Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Introduction,” and Edward B. Fiske, “The Carolina Covenant,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 3, 70. Numbers for 2006 and 2007 from “The Politics of Inclusion: Higher Education at a Crossroads—Financial Aid Initiatives,” Updated Conference Materials, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, September 2007. Number for 2008 calculated from “New Institutional Initiative to Improve Access for Low to Moderate Income Students,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, updated 5/29/2007, http://www.unc.edu/inclusion/initiatives.pdf, and “Summary of Responses for Updated Inventory of Access Initiatives” [Word document], University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, updated 11/5/2008.

Schools with Financial Aid Initiatives

24

44

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006 2007 2008

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

ols

Carolina CovenantCarolina Covenant Eligibility at 200% of the poverty line (about $44,000 for a Eligibility at 200% of the poverty line (about $44,000 for a

family of four)family of four) Combination of grants (87%), loans (7%), and work-study (6%)Combination of grants (87%), loans (7%), and work-study (6%) Support programs for Covenant ScholarsSupport programs for Covenant Scholars

Faculty and staff mentoring for first-year studentsFaculty and staff mentoring for first-year students Peer mentoring by experienced Covenant ScholarsPeer mentoring by experienced Covenant Scholars Career guidance and personal development opportunities such as Career guidance and personal development opportunities such as

etiquette dinners and career workshopsetiquette dinners and career workshops Social events such as pizza parties during pre-exam reading periodSocial events such as pizza parties during pre-exam reading period

Not an “affirmative action” program; admissions remain Not an “affirmative action” program; admissions remain “need-blind”“need-blind”

Participation in the program (as of 2009):Participation in the program (as of 2009): 1,450 Covenant Scholars were currently enrolled1,450 Covenant Scholars were currently enrolled Nearly 1,800 students had participated in the program since its Nearly 1,800 students had participated in the program since its

start in fall 2004 start in fall 2004

Source: Edward B. Fiske, “The Carolina Covenant,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 28, 34-40, and 46, Figure 2.1. Shirley Ort and Lynn Williford, “Carolina Covenant 2009 Program Update,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, http://www.unc.edu/carolinacovenant/files/2009/Carolina%20Covenant%202009%20Update%20FINAL032509.pdf, retrieved August 23, 2010.

Graduation Rates for Covenant Scholars and Other Students

56.7%

74.3%

61.9%

75.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Covenant All students

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Gra

du

ate

d w

ith

in E

igh

t S

em

es

ters

2003 Control Group 2004 Cohort

Graduation Rates Graduation Rates under Carolina Covenantunder Carolina Covenant

+ 5.2%

+ 1.3%

Source: Edward B. Fiske, “The Carolina Covenant,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 62, Table 2.8. Data from UNC Office of Scholarship and Student Aid.

Overall Pell Percentages Overall Pell Percentages FlatFlat

Students at UNC Eligible for Pell Grants

14.4%14.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2003-04 2008-09

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ent

Bo

dy

Source: “Pell Grants: The Cornerstone of African-American Higher Education,” special report, Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (Autumn 2009): 74.

Three reasons to Three reasons to supplement financial aid supplement financial aid

with socioeconomic with socioeconomic affirmative actionaffirmative action

Educational. Enhance the university Educational. Enhance the university experience.experience.

Efficiency. Avoid wasting talent.Efficiency. Avoid wasting talent. Equity/Fairness/Justice. Strivers Equity/Fairness/Justice. Strivers

“deserve” to be admitted. Many “deserve” to be admitted. Many admissions officers see this rationale admissions officers see this rationale as naïve but it appears to resonate as naïve but it appears to resonate powerfully with the public.powerfully with the public.

Wasted Talent among Top Wasted Talent among Top StudentsStudents

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 155, Figure 3.18. Authors’ calculations of National Education Longitudinal Study data, U.S. Department of Education.

Postsecondary Destination of Top-scoring Quartile of Students, by Socioeconomic Status

31%

28%

10%

6%

24%

14%

44%

66%

80%

21%

24%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Low SES

High SES

Low SES

High SES

Low SES

High SES

Percentage of Top-scoring Quartile of Students

Attended four-year college

Attended two-year college

Did not attend college

Rewarding Strivers: Rewarding Strivers: Predicted SATPredicted SAT

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 173.

Predicted Combined Math and Verbal SAT Score, by Type of Student, on a 400-1600 Point Scale

544

1054

1328

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Highly disadvantaged Average Highly advantaged

Co

mb

ined

mat

h a

nd

ver

bal

SA

T s

core

The Price of SES & Racial The Price of SES & Racial DisadvantagesDisadvantages

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 170, Table 3.7.

The Cost of Disadvantage (in SAT Points), by Category of Disadvantage

399

228

101

56

SES beyond individual control

Factors within students' constrained choice set

Other

Race (black)

Economic Affirmative Action: Economic Affirmative Action: Public SupportPublic Support

Support for Racial and Economic Affirmative Action: 3 polls

26 27 26

59 5765

010203040506070

LA Times EPIC/MRA Newsweek

Race

Income

Source: EPIC/MRA poll (conducted January 29–February 3, 2003); Los Angeles Times poll (conducted January 30–February 2, 2003); and Newsweek poll (conducted January 16–17, 2003).

Will Low-Income Students Be Will Low-Income Students Be Able to Do the Work if they Able to Do the Work if they

are provided Economic are provided Economic Affirmative Action ?Affirmative Action ?

Carnevale and Rose Simulation of Economic Carnevale and Rose Simulation of Economic Affirmative Action in Top 146 colleges.Affirmative Action in Top 146 colleges.

* Pool consisting of * Pool consisting of

(1) all students who have good grades and score above (1) all students who have good grades and score above 1300 on the SAT (or the ACT equivalent), plus 1300 on the SAT (or the ACT equivalent), plus

(2) economically disadvantaged students with high (2) economically disadvantaged students with high grades and test scores (between 1000 and 1300 on the grades and test scores (between 1000 and 1300 on the SAT). SAT).

Economic Affirmative ActionEconomic Affirmative Action

* * Economic disadvantage defined as:Economic disadvantage defined as:(1) being in the bottom 40 percent by (1) being in the bottom 40 percent by socioeconomic status (defined as parents’ income, socioeconomic status (defined as parents’ income, education, and occupation); and/or education, and occupation); and/or (2) attending high schools with a high percentage (2) attending high schools with a high percentage (>25%) of students eligible for free and reduced (>25%) of students eligible for free and reduced price lunch or low percentage (<25%) of seniors price lunch or low percentage (<25%) of seniors going on to four year colleges.going on to four year colleges.

* Lottery admissions within this pool of students.* Lottery admissions within this pool of students.

* The top 146 colleges represent the most selective * The top 146 colleges represent the most selective 10 percent of four-year colleges and are at the 10 percent of four-year colleges and are at the heart of the debate over affirmative action heart of the debate over affirmative action policiespolicies. .

Source: Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status,” p. 139.

Many Low-Income Students Many Low-Income Students Can Succeed in Selective Can Succeed in Selective

CollegesColleges

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions,” in America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed. (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2004), 142, 149.

Existing Policies vs. Socioeconomic Preferences

10%

38%

90%86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Race-based, legacy, andathletic preferences

Socioeconomic preferences

Percentage ofstudents in theBottom TwoSocioeconomicStatus Quartiles

Graduation Rates

*Barnard College, Bowdoin College, Columbia University, Harvard University, Macalester College, Middlebury College, Oberlin College, Princeton University, Smith College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, William College, Yale University

** There is no statistically significant relationship (either positive or negative) between having a family income in the bottom quartile and being admitted.

Note: Figures refer to 1995 applicant pool. Adjusted admissions advantage for Bottom income quartile is calculated relative to middle quartiles.

Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2005), 105, Table 5.1.

Adjusted Admissions Advantages at 13 Elite Colleges*

30.2%27.7%

19.7%

4.1%

-1.0%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Recruited athlete Underrepresentedminority

Legacy First-generationcollege student

Bottom incomequartile

Per

cen

tag

e p

oin

ts o

f ad

van

tag

e

Socioeconomic Preference Socioeconomic Preference SmallSmall

**

Increased Chances of Increased Chances of Admissions for Legacies in Admissions for Legacies in

Three StudiesThree Studies160 SAT points 19.7 percentage

point increase45.1 percentage point increase

Child of Undergraduate Alumnus:

Legacy Bonus

Legacy Bonus

Legacy Bonus

1200

1360

40 %

59.7 %

40 %

85.1 %

Source: Thomas J. Espenshade, Chang Y. Chung, and Joan L. Walling, “Admission Preferences for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities,” Social Science Quarterly 85, no. 5 (December 2004): 1431.

Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press, 2005), 105-06.

Source: Michael Hurwitz, “The Impact of Legacy Status on Undergraduate Admissions at Elite Colleges and Universities,” Economics of Education Review 30, Issue 3 (June 2011): pp.480-492, and Elyse Ashburn, “At Elite Colleges, Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously Thought,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 5, 2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys-Advantage-May-Be/125812/

Affirmative Action for the Affirmative Action for the Rich: Historical OriginsRich: Historical Origins

Peter Schmidt’s chapter outlines the Peter Schmidt’s chapter outlines the rise of legacy preferences after WWI rise of legacy preferences after WWI as one way to limit admissions of as one way to limit admissions of immigrant students, particularly immigrant students, particularly Jews.Jews.

Legacy preferences Legacy preferences inconsistent with the ideals inconsistent with the ideals of a Democratic Republicof a Democratic Republic

Michael Lind’s chapter on American Michael Lind’s chapter on American experiment in Jeffersonian natural experiment in Jeffersonian natural aristocracy vs. Old World’s artificial aristocracy vs. Old World’s artificial inherited aristocracy.inherited aristocracy.

Carlton Larson’s chapter on U.S. Carlton Larson’s chapter on U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on granting Constitution’s prohibition on granting titles of nobility. Concludes legacy titles of nobility. Concludes legacy preferences are likely to have been preferences are likely to have been viewed by founders as profoundly un-viewed by founders as profoundly un-American.American.

Legacy preferences don’t Legacy preferences don’t increase alumni givingincrease alumni giving

Surprisingly little research to date.Surprisingly little research to date. Chad Coffman’s chapter examines top 100 Chad Coffman’s chapter examines top 100

national universities as identified by U.S. national universities as identified by U.S. News 1998-2008.News 1998-2008.

Those with alumni preferences had higher Those with alumni preferences had higher annual giving ($317 vs. 201) but once control annual giving ($317 vs. 201) but once control for wealth of alumni, the difference was for wealth of alumni, the difference was reduced to $15.39, and was statistically reduced to $15.39, and was statistically insignificant.insignificant.

Concludes that with appropriate controls, “ Concludes that with appropriate controls, “ there is no statistically significant evidence of there is no statistically significant evidence of a causal relationship between legacy-a causal relationship between legacy-preference policies and total alumni giving at preference policies and total alumni giving at top universities.”top universities.”

Alumni giving (cont.)Alumni giving (cont.)

7 institutions dropped legacy preferences 7 institutions dropped legacy preferences during the period of the study and there during the period of the study and there was “no short-term measurable reduction was “no short-term measurable reduction in alumni giving as a result of abolishing in alumni giving as a result of abolishing legacy preferences.”legacy preferences.”

Of top 10 universities in the world in Of top 10 universities in the world in 2008 according to Shanghai University 2008 according to Shanghai University rankings, four (Caltech, UC Berkeley, rankings, four (Caltech, UC Berkeley, Oxford and Cambridge) do not employ Oxford and Cambridge) do not employ legacy preference.legacy preference.

Under-represented Minority Proportions of Under-represented Minority Proportions of National Applicant Pool at 18 National National Applicant Pool at 18 National

Universities, Legacy Pool, and U.S. Universities, Legacy Pool, and U.S. Population (2005)Population (2005)

12.5

6.7

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Entire ApplicantPool

Legacy ApplicantPool

U.S. Population

Per

cen

t M

ino

rity

Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education (Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press, 2005), 168 (under-represented minority proportion of entire and legacy applicant pools); applicant pool data from all 18 national schools for which authors had legacy data. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Population Estimates Program, Vintage 2005, July 1, 2005 (minority proportion of U.S. population).

Challenges for the Challenges for the University of WisconsinUniversity of Wisconsin

Reduce stratification within the Reduce stratification within the system, drawing more middle-class system, drawing more middle-class students into community collegesstudents into community colleges

Supplement financial aid programs Supplement financial aid programs with a leg up in admissions for with a leg up in admissions for Strivers.Strivers.

Eliminate legacy preferencesEliminate legacy preferences

Contact Information and Contact Information and SourcesSources

Richard D. KahlenbergRichard D. KahlenbergSenior FellowSenior FellowThe Century FoundationThe Century Foundation1333 H Street, NW, 101333 H Street, NW, 10thth Floor FloorWashington, D.C. 20005Washington, D.C. 20005202-745-5476202-745-5476kahlenberg@tcf.orgkahlenberg@tcf.orgwww.tcf.orgwww.tcf.org; ; www.equaleducation.orgwww.equaleducation.org

Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in CollegeRewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College (New (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, with chapters by Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl; and Edward B. Fiskewith chapters by Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl; and Edward B. Fiske

Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College AdmissionsAffirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), edited by Richard D. (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg.Kahlenberg.

America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher EducationAmerica’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2004), edited by Richard D. (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2004), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, with chapters by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose; Kahlenberg, with chapters by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose; Michael Timpane and Arthur Hauptman; and Lawrence Gladieux.Michael Timpane and Arthur Hauptman; and Lawrence Gladieux.

Richard D. Kahlenberg, Richard D. Kahlenberg, The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative ActionThe Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action (New (New York: Basic Books, 1996).York: Basic Books, 1996).

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 170, Table 3.7.

Cost of Disadvantage (in SAT points)

13

43

48

28

12

41

24

39

56

38

113

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Lowest income quartile (compared to highest)

High school dropout parent (compared to most educated)

Father is a laborer (compared to being a physician)

Non-college-going peer group

Public high school (compared to private)

Majority of school enrollment eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (90 percentversus going to a school with no eligibles)

Neighborhood has few heads of household with graduate education (5 percent versus90 percent)

Live in the South

No college savings (wealth) relative to having saved $40,000 (per $10,000)

Having a dropout sibling

Non-racial Obstacles:

Black (compared to white)

SAT points

Non-racial Obstacles: