Making change happen in L.A.

Last week’s The New York Times had an “>Efforts to Recruit Poor Students Lag at Some Elite Colleges” the Times revealed that while many top colleges “profess a growing commitment to recruiting poor students” there are “wide disparities” in low income enrollment among the most competitive private schools.
The article quotes the president of Vassar who bluntly observed that enrolling disadvantaged students is a measure of a university’s commitment to change, “It’s a question of how serious you are about it” (recruiting low income students). Catherine Bond Hill, Vassar’s head, commented on the schools with multi-billion dollar endowments and numerous tax exemption who aren’t serious, she said, “shame on you.”

“>income inequality gap” that exists in our country. The United States is ranked fifth from the bottom in terms of the twenty members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the world’s most economically advanced nations). There is little doubt that educational opportunity is among the most effective vehicles to move individuals form lower to higher socio-economic strata.

The Times’ article makes clear that a university needs commitment and seriousness if it aims to be successful in identifying, encouraging and enrolling poor kids. In the real world of costs and benefits there is little incentive to admit these students who not only need financial assistance and support while in school but whose presence often hurts universities where they least want to be impacted— the popular rankings by US News and others. Those “best” lists “reward schools not only for recruiting higher performing students, but also for increasing spending on salaries and buildings, but not on financial aid or diversity.” [Emphasis added]

So such motivation as exists has to be self-generated and largely propelled by the desire to do the right thing. It costs the universities money in tuition lost (despite the Pell Grants from the federal government and Cal Grants from the state) and it is expensive to identify and nurture talented but disadvantaged kids (a recent New York Times“>The New York Times (and