Poverty And Diversity At Harvard

An article in the Education section of today’s New York Times describes a new Harvard policy relieving poor parents of the obligation to contribute anything to their children’s tuition.

Aiming to get more low-income students to enroll, Harvard will stop asking parents who earn less than $40,000 to make any contribution toward the cost of their children’s education. Harvard will also reduce the amount it seeks from parents with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000.

“When only 10 percent of the students in elite higher education come from families in the lower half of the income distribution, we are not doing enough,” said Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard, who will announce the financial aid changes at a meeting of the American Council on Education in Miami Beach today.

A graph accompanying the article reveals that 6.8% of the freshmen who entered Harvard in 1999 came from families with incomes under $33,000, while 84% came from families whose income was above $80,000. Since Harvard’s figures are said to be similar to those at other elite schools, no wonder Dr. Summers (who, after all, is an economist) said that “higher education, rather than being an engine of social mobility, may be inhibiting it because of the wide gap in college attendance for students from different income classes.”

Harvard’s beefing up of its financial aid to poor students is commendable, but what I found most fascinating about the article is what was not in it. The poor are scarce at Harvard, but does that make them “diverse”? Does Harvard believe that the extreme “underrepresentation” (to borrow a term from the diversity wars) of economically poor or even average students skews and distorts the education of all? Can’t tell. There’s no mention of “diversity” at all, even though Harvard and others have argued incessantly that liberal education depends upon it.

Harvard wants more minority students, and I’m sure it is spending lavishly in aid and other monies to get them. Now it wants more poor students, and it will spend more to get them. Harvard’s admission policies appear to provide at least some racial preference (some older data is mentioned here and here), although that preference does not appear to be nearly as large as that provided by even other elite schools. (In the data referenced above, the black-white SAT gap at Harvard in 1992 was 95 points, compared to 288 at Berkeley, 271 at Rice, 171 at Stanford, 150 at Princeton.)

Still, the question remains whether Harvard and the other elites should attempt to increase the numbers of their poor students not simply by paying for them but by admitting them with lower test scores and grades than the non-poor, or at least than the non-minority non-poor. To fail to do so, which appears to the case at Harvard and elsewhere, is to say (surprise!) that the only “diversity” that matters is racial, i.e., skin-deep.

That so many of our finest minds at so many of our finest universities find it perfectly fair and reasonable to lower the admissions bar to attract minorities, even the sons and daughters of wealthy, college-educated parents and sometimes grandparents, while insisting that all non-minorities, no matter how poor or disadvantaged, meet the same high standards is a measure of what the racialist fetish for “diversity” has done to our values.

Say What? (16)

  1. StuartT February 29, 2004 at 11:35 am | | Reply

    Well first of all, you are a racist, and thus your entire logical premise is negated. And besides, modern racial preferences are nothing compared to slavery. And besides that, don’t you whites have anything better to complain about?

    I think that fairly encapsulates the adversarial position.

  2. KRM February 29, 2004 at 3:32 pm | | Reply

    In addition, it appears that racial diversity IS the only diversity that matters on campus (although orientation/gender seems to be picking up some stream). It is clear that intellectual diversity in anathema and any straight white males regardless of background are to simply be viewed as potential (if not actual) sexual dangers.

  3. Gyp February 29, 2004 at 11:25 pm | | Reply

    Slavery was abolished years ago, and shouldn’t be dredged up as an argument against the very principle, racial equality, that abolished it!

    I fail to see how racial diversity matters so much. Are colleges tired of seeing the same ol’ skin color time and time again?

  4. Stu March 1, 2004 at 12:56 am | | Reply

    How like Harvard to assume that the disadvantaged will be deprived without a Harvard “education,” if education is what Harvard is peddling these days.

    The list of billionaries was published last week and it didn’t look a thing like the Harvard alumni directory.

    Of course, all those monied vulgarians hardly amount to a hill of beans in a Harvard measure. But among them their companies employ hundreds of thousands of people and are vital to the well-being of millions.

    Harvard could vanish without a trace tomorrow and this country, may it last another thousand years, will be no worse off for its absence.

    Now if we could only figure out some way to make the rest of the Ivies disappear.

  5. Nels Nelson March 1, 2004 at 4:41 am | | Reply

    Stu, President Bush is a Harvard graduate, Al Gore is a Harvard graduate, and both Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush were Ivy League graduates. According to my research, a full 16 of our current U.S. senators are Harvard graduates, including the Senate Majority Leader. 11 senators graduated from other Ivy League schools, meaning 27% of senators are Ivy League alumni.

    I’d say that’s fairly good representation for only eight universities.

  6. Kish March 1, 2004 at 6:56 am | | Reply

    I don’t know, I feel like i’m missing something, but; where is the wrong in picking up the Tab for poorer students?

    I’m just as against Affirmative Action as many of you are, but I would think that you would appluad an effort like this. From what I understand it seems to be a color-blind process. That, ALL students from a poor family recieve this benefit.

    If the person has the grades, then it really isn’t “fair” for them to not go to College, simply because they can’t afford it.

    God, I feel like a liberal…

  7. David March 1, 2004 at 7:45 am | | Reply

    Kish, you need to read more carefully. No one has spoken out against free tuition for the poor. In fact, the original post describes it as “commendable.”

  8. Sandy P. March 1, 2004 at 12:12 pm | | Reply

    However, is it a really good idea for parents or students not to pay anything? How can you feel you’re a contributor or have a stake if you get freebies?

    OTOH, doesn’t Harvard have a $15 billion endowment?

    I (as the government) should be funding their projects a lot less.

  9. Nels Nelson March 1, 2004 at 1:36 pm | | Reply

    Sandy, I didn’t see anything in the article to suggest an end to work-study programs (the 10 hours per week cited in the article) as part of financial aid packages, so students would still be required to contribute a few thousand dollars a year.

  10. Sarah March 1, 2004 at 5:04 pm | | Reply

    There should be economic aid for students who need it. When I went to Stanford, I got 2 part-time jobs with the help of the Placement Office and did well enough academically to get a scholarship for the rest.

    I got my education the old-fashioned way. I EARNED it. Mom didn’t (couldn’t) contribute a dime. And why should she? It was my education, after all. And working 6-8 hours a day meant that I really appreciated what I was doing.

    Who cares what color I am? The logic that says that such-and-such a person is more deserving is faulty. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity. What you make of it is up to you.

  11. Stu March 1, 2004 at 7:29 pm | | Reply

    Nels, I said nothing about Harvard grads being uninfluential. I talked about monied vulgarians (from Harvard’s point of view) on the list of billionaires. Last I checked, being a Senator did not generally equate with building one’s own business with skills learned at Harvard. My point is that it is hardly a handicap in life to miss out on Harvard. Unless one is looking to create a resume attractive to an heiress, secure a position of influence in the State Department or to make contacts leading to a successful political career, spending four years at Harvard means little more than spending four years at Arizona State (and the weather is far less agreeable.) Of course, the former experience may equip one with (or as with, for example, Teddy Kennedy, merely reinforce) an insufferable sense of condescension toward all the striving money grubbers out there, but it is hardly indispensible to leading a productive, enriched life and putting lots of bread on lots of tables owned by the hoi polloi.

  12. Nels Nelson March 1, 2004 at 9:52 pm | | Reply

    Stu, in looking at the Forbes.com list of the 100 wealthiest billionaires in the U.S., I see 10 Harvard graduates and 16 graduates of other Ivy League schools, meaning 26% of the 100 wealthiest individuals in America are Ivy League alumni. That’s quite close to the 27% of U.S. senators I cited earlier.

    You’re correct in that “it is hardly a handicap in life to miss out on Harvard.” 27 of the 100 wealthiest Americans have a high school diploma or less. 42 of the 100 inherited their fortunes.

    But as I said before, in speaking of the Ivy League schools, that’s fairly good representation for only eight universities.

  13. Stu March 2, 2004 at 1:12 am | | Reply

    Nels, you have me at a disadvantage. How many of those 26 Ivy graduates inherited their wealth?

  14. Nels Nelson March 2, 2004 at 2:56 am | | Reply

    Stu, good question. Again looking at the 100 richest individuals in the U.S., it seems as though 5/10 Harvard and 7/16 “other Ivy League” graduates inherited their wealth, for a total of 12 out of 26 Ivy League graduates. The numbers work out to 46% of the Ivy League graduates having inherited their fortunes, as opposed to 41% of the non-Ivy League graduates, though sample size is a serious issue with a data set this small (one fewer Ivy League inheritor and it would be 42% instead of 46%) so I’d be cautious about drawing conclusions from that 5% gap.

    Of the remaining 30 inheritors, 20 graduated from other universities and 10 have a high school diploma or less.

    Another interesting statistic is the average age of the 100 wealthiest Americans: 65.5 years old. Also, though 12 women appear on the list, not one of them is self made.

  15. Chetly Zarko March 3, 2004 at 1:14 pm | | Reply

    Even as Harvard doesn’t fully understand what and how it is doing what it is trying to do; John, this proves that our movement to end race preferences is having significant positive effects. This is one of the side benefits of the pressure that Grutter and Gratz (v. Bollinger) exerted; and that they continue to push for today in Michigan.

  16. Paula Garcia San Antonio, TX July 20, 2004 at 6:08 am | | Reply

    I agree with the National Organization for Women (NOW) President Kim Gandy. I read an article in which she publicly stated,

    “There has always been affirmative action—but for many years it operated to exclude women and people of color. Consider one example,” said Gandy, “There is little doubt that George W. Bush’s grades were lower than those of hundreds of students who were rejected by Yale the same year Bush was welcomed there.”

    “Yes, George W. Bush was a beneficiary of one kind of affirmative action—the kind that favored the sons of (overwhelmingly white) Yale graduates. Yet there has been no denunciation of the ‘extra points’ universities still give to children of big donors or former graduates—only a condemnation of efforts to offset that by considering race,ethnic, AND economic background. Those diversity factors contribute much more to the breadth and depth of academic life, and are more deserving of affirmative consideration, than the wealth and connections that currently receive extra credit.”

    :p

Say What?