Rewarding Strivers:
Helping Low-Income Students
Succeed in College
Affordability and College Attainment in Wisconsin
Public Higher Education
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Richard D. Kahlenberg
July 8, 2011
“Great Equalizer” is Broken
Bachelor's Degree Attainment by Age 26 or 29
80%
70%
68%
60%
50%
40%
34.2%
30%
17.2%
20%
9%
10%
0%
Wealthy
Low-Income
Family Socioeconomic Status*
White
Black
Race**
*Bachelor’s degree attainment by age 26 for the year 2000. Wealthy refers to students in the top income quartile with at least one
parent graduated from college. Low-income refers to students in the bottom income quartile with neither parent graduated from
college.
**Bachelor’s degree attainment by age 29 for the year 2003.
Source: National Education Longitudinal Study 1988/2000 data, cited in William Bowen, Matthew Chingos, and Michael
McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2009), 21, Figure 2.2. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003, Current Population Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census
Bureau, 2003), 5, Figure 3, available at www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-550.pdf, retrieved August 24, 2010.
SES Stratification within Higher
Education
Socioeconomic Distribution at Colleges by Selectivity, 2006
Bottom SES quartile
Third SES quartile
Second SES quartile
Top SES quartile
8
16
25
19
37
49
Percent
27
83
70
21
17
29
31
29
30
26
25
20
43
17
28
21
14
No
postsecondary
Community
college
Less- and
noncompetitive
Competitive
9
9
8
7
5
Very competitive
Highly
competitive
Most competitive
Note: Some columns do not total 100 due to rounding.
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,”
in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation
Press, 2010), 137, Figure 3.7.
Matters Because Selective
Institutions Offer Advantages
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Higher Spending
Substantial Subsidies
Higher Graduation Rates
Higher Earnings
Greater Chance at Leadership
Spending by Selectivity
Per-student Spending (in dollars)
Per-student Spending at Colleges, by Selectivity, 2006
$100,000
$92,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$12,000
$Least-selective Colleges
Most Selective Colleges
Note: Selectivity is measured by ranking all colleges according to the national percentile that corresponds with each
college’s mean SAT or ACT score. Spending is reported in 2007 dollars.
Source: Caroline M. Hoxby, The Changing Selectivity of American Colleges, NBER Working Paper 15446 (Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009), 15.
Subsidies
Percentage Paid by Student, by Decile
90%
77%
Percentage Paid by Student
80%
70%
60%
52%
50%
39%
40%
30%
25%
20%
24%
26%
27%
Decile 3
Decile 4
Decile 5
31%
33%
Decile 6
Decile 7
20%
10%
0%
Top decile Decile 2
Decile 8
Decile 9
Bottom
decile
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do
about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York:
Century Foundation Press, 2010), 149, Figure 3.17. Calculations based on G. C. Winston, Economic Stratification and
Hierarchy in U.S. Colleges and Universities, Discussion Paper 58 (Williamstown, Mass.: Williams Project on the Economics
of Higher Education, Williams College, 2000) http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/dps/dp-58.pdf, retrieved November
11, 2009.
Higher Graduation Rates
Graduation Rates, by Selectivity and SAT-Equivalent Score
Tier 1 (highest selectivity)
Tier 2
Tier 3
96%
100%
Percentage of Initial Attendees
Who Graduate
90%
80%
70%
Tier 4 (lowest selectivity)
86%
96%
90%
85%
83%
85%
78% 78%
71%
67%
78%
70% 68%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Data
0%
limitations
Data
0%
limitations
0%
1000 to 1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
>1300
SAT-Equivalent Score
Note: SAT-equivalent scores are based on SAT scores or equivalent percentile correspondences of ACT scores to SAT
equivalence. The correspondence was developed by ETS.
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do
about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York:
Century Foundation Press, 2010), 151, Table 3.5. Authors’ analysis of survey data from High School and Beyond, U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsb/.
Higher Earnings
Entry-level Earnings of College Graduates, by Selectivity, 1999
$60,000
$53,817
$50,000
$37,081
$40,000
$39,880
$41,779
$33,177
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$Community college
Less and
noncompetitive
college
Competitive college
Very competitive
college
Most and highly
competitive college
Note: Dollar amounts are in 2007 dollars.
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,”
in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation
Press, 2010), 149, Figure 3.17. Authors’ calculations from Barron’s Selectivity Rankings, various years; National Education
Longitudinal Study: Base Year through Fourth Follow-Up, 1988-2000 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, 2000).
Leadership
Current Students or Graduates of 12 Elite Institutions as a
Percentage of Various Populations
60%
54%
50%
Current Students or
Graduates of Harvard, Yale,
the University of Chicago,
Stanford, Columbia, MIT,
Cornell, Northwestern,
Princeton, Johns Hopkins,
the University of
Pennsylvania, and Dartmouth
Population Share
42%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.7%
0%
Current Undergraduate
College Students
Government Leaders
Corporate Leaders
Note: Undergraduate population data for the 12 schools came from each institution’s website. All population counts are for 20092010, except for those from Yale, Cornell, and Northwestern, which are for 2008-2009.
Source: Thomas Dye, Who’s Running America? (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 148. Current Population Survey
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008), available at
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school/cps2008.html, retrieved August 24, 2010.
Percentage of Students Receiving Pell Grants
University of Wisconsin – Madison
Ranks Poorly on SES Diversity
Percentage of Students Receiving Pell Grants at
Selected Public Flagship Universities, 2007
35.0%
33.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.4%
41st out of 43 flagships
20.0%
13.1%
15.0%
9.5%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
University of
California Berkeley
Average for
Flagship
Universities in 43
States
University of
Wisconsin Madison
University of
Virginia - Main
Campus
Note: Flagships from seven states (CT, KY, LA, NM, NJ, PA, WA) excluded due to problems with data.
Source: Kati Haycock, Mary Lynch, and Jennifer Engle, Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities Are Straying
from Their Public Mission (Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, 2010), 20, Figure 19.
UW When Account for State SES
Low-Income Student Access Ratio at
Selected Public Flagship Universities, 2007
Low-Income Student Access Ratio
Low-Income Student Access Ratio =
1.00
0.90
% students receiving Pell grants at institution
% students receiving Pell grants
in all colleges & universities in the state
0.86
0.80
0.70
0.52
0.60
0.50
30th out of 43 flagships
0.47
__ of __ states
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
University of
California Berkeley
Average for
Flagship
Universities in 43
States
University of
Wisconsin Madison
University of
Virginia - Main
Campus
Note: Flagships from seven states (CT, KY, LA, NM, NJ, PA, WA) excluded due to problems with data.
Source: Kati Haycock, Mary Lynch, and Jennifer Engle, Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities Are Straying
from Their Public Mission (Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, 2010), 20, Figure 19.
Good news: Programs to Address
Stratification through Financial Aid
Schools with Financial Aid Initiatives
90
83
80
Number of Schools
70
60
50
44
40
30
24
20
10
0
2006
2007
2008
Year
Note: Number of schools is cumulative.
Source: Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Introduction,” and Edward B. Fiske, “The Carolina Covenant,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping LowIncome Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 3, 70. Numbers for
2006 and 2007 from “The Politics of Inclusion: Higher Education at a Crossroads—Financial Aid Initiatives,” Updated
Conference Materials, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, September 2007. Number for 2008 calculated from “New
Institutional Initiative to Improve Access for Low to Moderate Income Students,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
updated 5/29/2007, http://www.unc.edu/inclusion/initiatives.pdf, and “Summary of Responses for Updated Inventory of
Access Initiatives” [Word document], University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, updated 11/5/2008.
Carolina Covenant



Eligibility at 200% of the poverty line (about $44,000 for a family of four)
Combination of grants (87%), loans (7%), and work-study (6%)
Support programs for Covenant Scholars






Faculty and staff mentoring for first-year students
Peer mentoring by experienced Covenant Scholars
Career guidance and personal development opportunities such as etiquette dinners
and career workshops
Social events such as pizza parties during pre-exam reading period
Not an “affirmative action” program; admissions remain “need-blind”
Participation in the program (as of 2009):


1,450 Covenant Scholars were currently enrolled
Nearly 1,800 students had participated in the program since its start in fall 2004
Source: Edward B. Fiske, “The Carolina Covenant,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College,
Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 28, 34-40, and 46, Figure 2.1. Shirley Ort and
Lynn Williford, “Carolina Covenant 2009 Program Update,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
http://www.unc.edu/carolinacovenant/files/2009/Carolina%20Covenant%202009%20Update%20FINAL032509.pdf,
retrieved August 23, 2010.
Graduation Rates
under Carolina Covenant
Graduation Rates for Covenant Scholars and Other Students
2003 Control Group
2004 Cohort
Percentage Graduated within Eight Semesters
80%
+ 1.3%
70%
+ 5.2%
60%
74.3%
75.6%
61.9%
56.7%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Covenant
All students
Source: Edward B. Fiske, “The Carolina Covenant,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College,
Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2010), 62, Table 2.8. Data from UNC Office of
Scholarship and Student Aid.
Overall Pell Percentages Flat
Students at UNC Eligible for Pell Grants
16%
14.4%
14.4%
2003-04
2008-09
Percent of Student Body
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Source: “Pell Grants: The Cornerstone of African-American Higher Education,” special report, Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education (Autumn 2009): 74.
Three reasons to supplement
financial aid with socioeconomic
affirmative action



Educational. Enhance the university experience.
Efficiency. Avoid wasting talent.
Equity/Fairness/Justice. Strivers “deserve” to
be admitted. Many admissions officers see this
rationale as naïve but it appears to resonate
powerfully with the public.
Wasted Talent among Top Students
Postsecondary Destination of Top-scoring Quartile of Students,
by Socioeconomic Status
80%
High SES
66%
51%
44%
Low SES
14%
High SES
Attended
two-year
college
24%
21%
24%
Low SES
High SES
6%
Did not
attend
college
10%
28%
31%
Low SES
0%
Attended
four-year
college
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percentage of Top-scoring Quartile of Students
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do about It,”
in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York: Century Foundation
Press, 2010), 155, Figure 3.18. Authors’ calculations of National Education Longitudinal Study data, U.S. Department of
Education.
Rewarding Strivers: Predicted SAT
Predicted Combined Math and Verbal SAT Score,
by Type of Student, on a 400-1600 Point Scale
1328
Combined math and verbal SAT score
1400
1200
1054
1000
800
600
544
400
200
0
Highly disadvantaged
Average
Highly advantaged
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do
about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York:
Century Foundation Press, 2010), 173.
The Price of SES & Racial
Disadvantages
The Cost of Disadvantage (in SAT Points), by
Category of Disadvantage
56
101
SES beyond individual control
Factors within students' constrained choice set
399
Other
Race (black)
228
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do
about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York:
Century Foundation Press, 2010), 170, Table 3.7.
Economic Affirmative Action:
Public Support
Support for Racial and Economic Affirmative Action:
3 polls
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
65
59
26
LA Times
57
27
EPIC/MRA
26
Race
Income
Newsweek
Source: EPIC/MRA poll (conducted January 29–February 3, 2003); Los Angeles Times poll (conducted January 30–
February 2, 2003); and Newsweek poll (conducted January 16–17, 2003).
Will Low-Income Students Be Able to
Do the Work if they are provided
Economic Affirmative Action ?
Carnevale and Rose Simulation of Economic
Affirmative Action in Top 146 colleges.
* Pool consisting of
(1) all students who have good grades and score above 1300 on the
SAT (or the ACT equivalent), plus
(2) economically disadvantaged students with high grades and test
scores (between 1000 and 1300 on the SAT).
Economic Affirmative Action
* Economic disadvantage defined as:
(1) being in the bottom 40 percent by socioeconomic status
(defined as parents’ income, education, and occupation);
and/or
(2) attending high schools with a high percentage (>25%) of
students eligible for free and reduced price lunch or low
percentage (<25%) of seniors going on to four year colleges.
* Lottery admissions within this pool of students.
* The top 146 colleges represent the most selective 10 percent
of four-year colleges and are at the heart of the debate over
affirmative action policies.
Source: Carnevale and Rose, “Socioeconomic Status,” p. 139.
Many Low-Income Students Can
Succeed in Selective Colleges
Existing Policies vs. Socioeconomic Preferences
100%
90%
90%
86%
80%
70%
60%
Percentage of
students in the
Bottom Two
Socioeconomic
Status Quartiles
Graduation Rates
50%
40%
38%
30%
20%
10%
10%
0%
Race-based, legacy, and
athletic preferences
Socioeconomic preferences
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Stephen J. Rose, “Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and
Selective College Admissions,” in America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education,
Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed. (New York: Century Foundation Press, 2004), 142, 149.
Socioeconomic Preference Small
Percentage points of advantage
Adjusted Admissions Advantages at
13 Elite Colleges*
35%
30%
30.2%
27.7%
25%
19.7%
20%
15%
10%
4.1%
5%
-1.0% **
0%
-5%
Recruited athlete Underrepresented
minority
Legacy
First-generation
college student
Bottom income
quartile
*Barnard College, Bowdoin College, Columbia University, Harvard University, Macalester College, Middlebury College, Oberlin College, Princeton
University, Smith College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Virginia, William College, Yale University
** There is no statistically significant relationship (either positive or negative) between having a family income in the bottom quartile and being admitted.
Note: Figures refer to 1995 applicant pool. Adjusted admissions advantage for Bottom income quartile is calculated relative to
middle quartiles.
Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education
(Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2005), 105, Table 5.1.
Increased Chances of Admissions
for Legacies in Three Studies
160 SAT points
1360
1200
Legacy
Bonus
19.7 percentage
point increase
Child of Undergraduate
Alumnus:
45.1 percentage
point increase
85.1 %
Legacy
Bonus
59.7 %
40 %
Source: Thomas J. Espenshade,
Chang Y. Chung, and Joan L.
Walling, “Admission Preferences
for Minority Students, Athletes,
and Legacies at Elite Universities,”
Social Science Quarterly 85, no. 5
(December 2004): 1431.
Source: William G. Bowen,
Martin A. Kurzweil and
Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and
Excellence in American Higher
Education (Charlottesville, Va.:
University of Virginia Press,
2005), 105-06.
Legacy
Bonus
40 %
Source: Michael Hurwitz, “The Impact of Legacy Status on
Undergraduate Admissions at Elite Colleges and
Universities,” Economics of Education Review 30, Issue 3 (June
2011): pp.480-492, and Elyse Ashburn, “At Elite Colleges,
Legacy Status May Count More Than Was Previously
Thought,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 5,
2011, http://chronicle.com/article/Legacys-Advantage-May-
Affirmative Action for the Rich:
Historical Origins

Peter Schmidt’s chapter outlines the rise of
legacy preferences after WWI as one way to
limit admissions of immigrant students,
particularly Jews.
Legacy preferences inconsistent with
the ideals of a Democratic Republic


Michael Lind’s chapter on American experiment
in Jeffersonian natural aristocracy vs. Old
World’s artificial inherited aristocracy.
Carlton Larson’s chapter on U.S. Constitution’s
prohibition on granting titles of nobility.
Concludes legacy preferences are likely to have
been viewed by founders as profoundly unAmerican.
Legacy preferences don’t increase
alumni giving




Surprisingly little research to date.
Chad Coffman’s chapter examines top 100 national
universities as identified by U.S. News 1998-2008.
Those with alumni preferences had higher annual
giving ($317 vs. 201) but once control for wealth of
alumni, the difference was reduced to $15.39, and was
statistically insignificant.
Concludes that with appropriate controls, “ there is no
statistically significant evidence of a causal relationship
between legacy-preference policies and total alumni
giving at top universities.”
Alumni giving (cont.)


7 institutions dropped legacy preferences during
the period of the study and there was “no shortterm measurable reduction in alumni giving as a
result of abolishing legacy preferences.”
Of top 10 universities in the world in 2008
according to Shanghai University rankings, four
(Caltech, UC Berkeley, Oxford and Cambridge)
do not employ legacy preference.
Under-represented Minority Proportions of National
Applicant Pool at 18 National Universities, Legacy Pool, and
U.S. Population (2005)
35
33
Percent Minority
30
25
20
15
12.5
10
6.7
5
0
Entire Applicant
Pool
Legacy Applicant
Pool
U.S. Population
Source: William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education
(Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press, 2005), 168 (under-represented minority proportion of entire and legacy applicant
pools); applicant pool data from all 18 national schools for which authors had legacy data. U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Division, Population Estimates Program, Vintage 2005, July 1, 2005 (minority proportion of U.S. population).
Challenges for the University of
Wisconsin



Reduce stratification within the system, drawing
more middle-class students into community
colleges
Supplement financial aid programs with a leg up
in admissions for Strivers.
Eliminate legacy preferences
Contact Information and Sources
Richard D. Kahlenberg
Senior Fellow
The Century Foundation
1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-745-5476
kahlenberg@tcf.org
www.tcf.org; www.equaleducation.org
Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College (New York: Century Foundation Press,
2010), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, with chapters by Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl;
and Edward B. Fiske
Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions (New York: Century Foundation
Press, 2010), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg.
America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education (New York: Century Foundation
Press, 2004), edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, with chapters by Anthony Carnevale and Stephen
Rose; Michael Timpane and Arthur Hauptman; and Lawrence Gladieux.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action (New York: Basic Books, 1996).
Cost of Disadvantage (in SAT points)
56
Black (compared to white)
Non-racial
Obstacles:
Non-racial
Obstacles:
24
Having a dropout sibling
41
No college savings (wealth) relative to having saved $40,000 (per $10,000)
12
Live in the South
Neighborhood has few heads of household with graduate education (5 percent versus
90 percent)
113
Majority of school enrollment eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (90 percent
versus going to a school with no eligibles)
38
28
Public high school (compared to private)
39
Non-college-going peer group
48
Father is a laborer (compared to being a physician)
43
High school dropout parent (compared to most educated)
13
Lowest income quartile (compared to highest)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
SAT points
Source: Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl, “How Increasing College Access Is Increasing Inequality, and What to Do
about It,” in Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College, Richard D. Kahlenberg, ed., (New York:
Century Foundation Press, 2010), 170, Table 3.7.