Access to Higher Education

By Erin Waddles

In economist’s Anthony Carnevale’s “Access to Opportunity: The Need for Universal Education and Training After High School,” one of his main ideas is that in order to address the “alarming” shortfall of workers precipitated by the retirement of baby boomers, we must “dramatically increase postsecondary attainment, especially among underserved groups.” “Without them,” he argues “we simply cannot produce enough skilled workers for the jobs of the future.”

Cue the frenzy. 

For the past decade, economists, policy makers, legislators, advocacy groups and the like have directed their time, talents, and treasures into addressing this shortfall, estimated to be around 5 million by 2020[1]. In rhetoric, this call to action is a noble in its intent - by increasing the number of first-generation, low-income, and/or underrepresented students that enter and complete higher education, both the student AND the economy will be helped. Students stand to benefit from the individual economic gains that come from access to higher education and the economy, through investment in these would-be college-goers, benefits from a skilled workforce that can fulfill the needs of the jobs of today and tomorrow. During his time in office, even President Obama issued a 2020 College Completion Goal, in which he declared that by 2020 America would “again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world”.

But in this endeavor to push more first-generation, low-income and/or underrepresented minorities into attaining postsecondary education, we are again putting the burden of solving the nation’s economic problems on those who are already marginalized.  

Across institutional types, the current “one-size-fits-all” approach of many colleges and universities does not set underrepresented students up for college completion, especially first-generation/low-income and/or minority students. For example, in fall 2016, 36% of all undergraduates were attending public and private two-year colleges. Among Black and Hispanic students, 42% were enrolled at community colleges, meaning community colleges have a major responsibility in helping students of color and/or low-income students. Though the completion and transfer rates of all students enrolled at community colleges are low, first-generation low-income and minority students face even lower rates of transfer and attainment. An analysis of community college student outcomes by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2011 found that 6 years after college entry, only 30% of low-income community college students, 26% of Black students, and 26% of Hispanic students have completed either a degree or certificate. Comparatively, 39% and 36% of White and high-income students complete a degree or certificate within 6 years of college entry (American Association of Community Colleges, 2012). 

Institutions of higher education are slow to change and therefore are ill-equipped to change as quickly as their populations are. 

While many would argue that there are a number of interventions designed to support these students - cultural centers, first-generation, low-income programs, access and completion supports none of them accurately address the underlying issue of the inequity of resources that exist and the ways in which we privilege certain (read: white) values and devalue others. For many students, we approach them from a deficit position. According to Yosso (2005), “one of the most prevalent forms of contemporary racism in US schools is deficit thinking”. Deficit thinking both blames poor academic performance on minority students and families by assuming 1) parents devalue don’t support their child’s education and 2) students enter school without cultural knowledge. These interventions are less about redesigning higher education structurally to fit the needs of students but are instead aimed at imposing dominant sociocultural and linguistic norms as well as valuing certain types of cultural wealth over others.  

To be sure, education and knowledge is not a value only held by the dominant (read: white) culture. But as it stands, American higher education continues to function largely in the way that it did when it was created, which requires that students may have to acquiesce to structural norms in order to complete their degrees.

For example, interventions aimed at increasing the completion rates of students attending 2-year colleges often point to encouraging students to be enrolled full-time, citing linkages between completion and full-time enrollment. But for many students, pursuing their education full-time is not realistic. Why then is the problem not conceptualized as the necessity of figuring out how best to support part-time and mixed enrollment students as opposed to demanding that students conform to predetermined times?

Demanding that these students pursue higher education without shifting or redesigning completely the way in which we conceptualize the purpose of higher education is violent. It puts the onus on these students to save us from an economic model that is not sustainable and always results in the perpetuation of the haves and have nots.

To be clear, the inequity that exists between the haves and the have nots can’t be solved by education alone. It must take comprehensive reform at a local, state, and national level to address the poverty that results in these educational inequalities.

[1]Carnevale et al. (2013) Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020