Opinion
Socioeconomic divide in student body merits reform at all levels
By Will Kaback ’20
February 2, 2017
Tags opinion
On Tuesday night, with the soft rush of the water feature in the KJ Atrium plugging away in the background, President Wippman spoke to the Hamilton community on a wide variety of topics. Interviewer and Senior Class President Silvia Radulescu ’17 brought up issues ranging from President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration to the College’s technological initiatives, to advice for the incoming class of 2021. It was an event unlike any other in the College’s history, as President Wippman spoke not from a podium in a grand auditorium or a lectern in one of the school’s historic buildings, but rather to a camera broadcasting to the world via Facebook live from the recesses of a comfy armchair.
Buried beneath the cozy exterior and amiable conversation, however, was one pointed question that spoke to a massive challenge currently facing not just Hamilton, but also liberal arts colleges across the nation. I’m referring to the disproportionate amount of wealth concentrated at elite institutions ranging from the NESCACs, to the Ivys, to schools farther west like Washington University and Colorado College.
The New York Times recently published the results of a study from The Equal Opportunity Project that found 38 colleges in the United States that had more students from the top 1 percent of income than the bottom 60 pecrent. Coming in at number 18 was Hamilton, where 19.6 percent of the students in the class of 2013 came from families in the top percentile of wealth (630 thousand dollars in annual income or more) and only 13.8 percent were from families making less than 65 thousand dollars, also known as the bottom 60 percent. Although far from the worst offender (there existed a 15.6 point differential for one school), the College nonetheless has a responsibility to be better.
This study should be a shock to the system of the administration and the Office of Admissions. We pride ourselves on diversity and inclusion, but how well are we living up to these standards when such a wealth disparity exists, even after the College’s decision to become need-blind in admissions in 2010? In light of these numbers, such rhetoric rings hollow.
Before I go any further, it’s important (and fair) to acknowledge the current measures in place at Hamilton that are aimed at reducing the wealth gap in the student body. Most notable is the aforementioned transition to a fully need-blind admissions process. In his Facebook Live address, Wippman characterized the Board of Trustees’ decision to implement this policy as “an incredibly important commitment [...] to access and affordability.” This means that the college “[doesn’t] consider [financial] need when they make an admissions decision, and after we’ve made that decision, which is based purely on merit, then we have a commitment to meet the full, demonstrated financial need of any of the freshmen admits that we’ve made.”
This idea of “demonstrated need” can be tricky, because it utilizes a formula based on a variety of financial factors to determine how much a family can afford to pay for tuition. Oftentimes, the computer-generated number concludes that they must pay more than they expect or are able to. That being said, the College’s need-blind policy is no doubt an important duty that it has upheld admirably since 2010.
“Families with resources have an advantage,” said Wippman later in the broadcast, citing the “enrichment programs” that such students can utilize to make them more likely to be admitted. I would argue that a solution to this issue is a revamped method of how we evaluate student applications, adding greater awareness and accountability for socioeconomic disadvantages faced by millions of kids nationwide. While the system in place does account for such factors, how well is it working when the share of students from the top 1 percent at elite colleges has steadily increased since 2002 and the population from the lower 40 pecent, 20 percent and 10 percent has stagnated or declined in the same period?
If President Wippman and the Office of Admissions are true to their word about wanting to address this problem (and I believe they are), it has to start with the actual process of admitting students.
Wippman stated that one of the school’s “big objectives” going forward is “to actively recruit and reach out to students from lower socioeconomic levels who might not consider a college like Hamilton.” I think this is the right first step, but it must be buoyed by mindful admissions decisions, consistency in outreach and analysis of what works and what doesn’t in the future. Above all, the College should analyze the results of The Equal Opportunity Project’s study and set benchmarks to meet in the coming years aimed at erasing the current differential in wealth that exists.
Obviously, the greater trend of income inequality in America presents an additional challenge to this goal, but it may be time for the administration to do a gut check and decide what is most important to them as an institution. That may mean making some cuts to bloated or extraneous programs in order to accommodate increased demand for financial aid. Alternatively (or additionally), it could establish an arm of the Office of Admissions strictly devoted to recruiting and working with underrepresented groups. Wippman and I agree that creating a greater presence in high schools and on social media are two concrete actions that can be taken toward meeting this goal. Some tough choices may be necessary, but, again, we need to decide what we really value. To me, socioeconomic diversity is worthy of sacrifice in other areas.
Some may say that even though it might be unfair that wealthier students have greater access to resources, doesn’t this inherently make them better students? Why wouldn’t we want the best? In fact, that same Equal Opportunity Project study found that low-income students who attend top colleges go on to achieve virtually the same success as their higher-income peers. The average difference in income rank between a student who comes from a family in the bottom 10 percent and a student in the top 1 percent is around two points. That means someone born into poverty who is admitted to a school like Hamilton is essentially just as likely to lead a successful life as his or her peer who is born into privilege. In the face of such data, Wippman’s point regarding unequal access to resources between the rich and the poor resonates. It’s not that low-income students are unfit to attend elite schools; they just are unable to compete with admissions standards that favor the wealthy. Once more, I would reiterate the necessity of reevaluating our own admissions standards to ensure that income does not impede merit.
Others would argue that, while imperfect, the socioeconomic diversity in our student body is good enough, and certainly not so bad as to warrant the cutting of other parts of the budget. In response, I would return to the question of what our values are. Is diversity (in all its forms) truly a key focus? Do we believe that substantial income inequality in a population has long-lasting, detrimental effects? Should more money be put towards recruiting students from the middle and lower classes? If the answer is yes to all three (or even one or two), then efforts to bridge the gap between the various income levels must be accentuated and accelerated.
By now, you can probably tell that I am a Bernie Sanders supporter. It was almost exactly a year ago that I heard him speak at the Iowa Caucuses, his infamous thymos reverberating with every exaggerated finger wag conjured from his hunched gait. There he spoke of the scourge of income inequality and its devastating effects on our country. If there has been any lasting effect from Senator Sander’s “Political Revolution,” it hinges on his dedication to dragging the harsh reality of inequality into the national limelight. His message is bolstered by the data like that from The Equal Opportunity Project, which shows that this problem has far-reaching implications, especially as it relates to our students.
The College has its mind in the right place when it comes to addressing this issue, and now it’s time to follow through on our promises and go even further in acting on our values.