The Other Diversity Mania

When we hear talk about the “need” for greater “diversity” on American campuses, the speaker is almost always talking about racial/ethnic diversity – the assumption that some students are more “interesting” and will add more to the school just because of their ancestry. Sometimes, however, the individual has something else in mind, specifically “socio-economic” diversity. Foremost among those who argue that selective colleges should aim to enroll more students from poor and “working class” families is Richard Kahlenberg. He has just contributed a long essay to Chronicle Review entitled “How Much Do You Pay for College?”

In the essay, Kahlenberg says that it was formerly “taboo” to talk about the socio-economic class of students (a Marxian-sounding notion that sounds odd in a nation where there are no distinct classes of people), but that more colleges are now considering his quest for affirmative action to enroll more students who come from relatively poor families.

Why should they do so? Kahlenberg’s egalitarianism shows when he writes that while community colleges spend about $13,000 per student, private research universities spend $67,000 per student, leading him to declare, “we are showering the greatest opportunities on the already advantaged.” There is the first logical error Kahlenberg makes – thinking that the level of per student spending indicates anything about quality of education.

We know that isn’t true in K-12, where many cities that spend the most (e.g. Washington, D.C.) have miserable results, while other cities that spend much less have better results, and sometimes parents who homeschool their children have excellent results at very little cost. And it isn’t true in higher education either. Students at a community college or a non-prestigious college where spending is low often have attentive professors who take their teaching very seriously. On the other hand, students in the prestigious universities Kahlenberg admires often find that they are taught very indifferently.

Kahlenberg also maintains that we ought to adopt socio-economic diversity because, “Access to professional networks at selective colleges can translate into greater wages, especially for students from low-income backgrounds.” Perhaps so, but let’s examine this more closely.

Bear in mind that his preference policy does not mean the difference between a student going to an elite school and not going to college at all. It’s the difference between going to an elite school and going to a school a notch below it in the fuzzy world of college rankings. Here in North Carolina, for instance, it might mean going to Chapel Hill instead of East Carolina.

Now, the student might do as well at Chapel Hill as at ECU, although the well-known and documented mismatch theory indicates that there’s a good chance that the preferentially admitted student will slide into an easy major at the more rigorous institution. Let’s give Kahlenberg his best-case scenario—the student graduates with a degree in a solid discipline (engineering, we’ll say) from Chapel Hill. Then what? Kahlenberg thinks he’ll earn more. That might be true initially, but in the long run, people’s earnings depend overwhelmingly on their productivity, not their educational pedigree.

And even if this student does enjoy slightly higher earnings with his more prestigious engineering degree, what’s the social gain? Kahlenberg seems to think that we’ll have struck a blow at our “class structure,” but the tiny marginal gain to a few “lower class” students who would have succeeded at another college anyway hardly seems worth fighting for.

Furthermore, those gains (taking the college prestige notion seriously) must be offset by losses to other students. When Chapel Hill turns down a student whose family is lower middle class to make room for the student whose family is “working class,” people like Kahlenberg will applaud, but America is no more fair or “socially just” for it.

Shuffling a small number of students around from less-prestigious colleges to more-prestigious ones is just a distraction from the real problem we face, which is that primary and secondary education for many poorer families is abysmal. That’s where the egalitarians should concentrate their efforts.

Socio-economic diversity was never a “taboo.” Almost no one has ever fretted about it simply because there is no reason to do so.

Comments

But the purpose of this is not really diversity, compelling as that argument may be. The push to favor students from low socio-economic backgrounds is designed to address the problem with existing affirmative action programs, which critics understandably point out now tend to favor reasonably affluent members of ethnic minority groups, particularly at elite colleges. Policies favoring poor students are designed to ensure that at least affirmative action programs actually target the disadvantaged.
I enjoy reading Mr. Leef's insights into education and often agree with them, but if he is going to use North Carolina for illustrative purposes, perhaps he should understand the UNC system. UNC - Chapel Hill does not offer engineering degrees. A more apt illustration might have students pursuing econ or business degrees, for example. Such degrees also have wider variance in rigor than engineering. I would not dismiss the relevance of the school one attends quite as casually as Mr. Leef does. Corporate recruiters do not view all schools equally when choosing which schools to visit. One's academic pedigree might not directly decide how well one does ten or twenty years after graduation, but that first job out of college often creates opportunities for second and third jobs that lead to success. Yes, long-term success will be tied to productivity, but productivity is dependent to some degree on the opportunities one has to produce.

Pages

Add new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
Posted by: George Leef

Stay Connected

Join our mailing list!

* indicates required

Pages