Does college re-produce
class inequality?
E. Armstrong & L. Hamilton, Paying for the Party intro, ch 2, ch 5, ch 6
April 10-15, 2019
April 12-17, 2019
Scandal!
William “Rick” Singer
 About 50 people from primarily wealthy families are accused of
bribing officials at elite colleges & universities to get their children
admitted.
 Part of the fraud was to manipulate scores on standardized exams,
but the principle tactic was to mis-represent applicants as athletic
recruits.
 The bribery was coordinated by William “Rick” Singer.
 The FBI’s investigation is nicknamed Operation Varsity Blues.
Class inequality in admissions vs. on-campus
• “Inside the Pricey, Totally Legal World of College Consultants” The New York
Times Mar 13 2019
• “A look at the many legal ways wealthy applicants have an edge in admissions”
Inside Higher Ed Mar 18 2019
• “I Learned in College That Admission Has Always Been for Sale: The bribery
scandal is no more abhorrent than the completely legal industry that helps many
wealthy kids get into the schools of their dreams” The New York Times Mar 13
2019
• “Elite Colleges Constantly Tell Low-Income Students That They Do Not Belong”
The Atlantic Mar 18 2019
• “The Implicit Punishment of Daring to Go to College When Poor” The New York
Times Mar 28 2019
• “What’s Life Like as a Student as U.S.C.? Depends on the Size of Your Bank
Account.” The New York Times Apr 3 2019
Armstrong & Hamilton’s story is here, not in the admissions process
Armstrong & Hamilton’s question
Elizabeth Armstrong
Univ. of Michigan
(UC Berkeley Sociology Ph.D.)
Laura Hamilton
Univ. of California, Merced
• Class inequality in campus life, not admissions.
• Class inequality not in terms of variations in student socioeconomic
background, but institutionalized in organizational practice.
• Armstrong & Hamilton’s hypothesis: flagship public universities like
“Midwest University” have systematic, institutionalized practices in
place that re-produce class inequality rather than enforce
meritocracy.
Armstrong & Hamilton’s argument: Colleges
accommodate different class projects (p. 10)
Social class shapes what families want and need from universities to
improve (or at least reproduce) their life circumstances. Students from
similar class backgrounds share financial, cultural, and social resources,
as well as lived experiences, that shape their orientations to college
and the agendas they can reasonably pursue. Although they mostly act
independently, a large number of students who share agendas become
a constituency to be reckoned with—even without recognizing, or
wanting to recognize, that they have become a group. The aggregate of
individual, class-based orientations and agendas are what we refer to
as “class projects.”
Why is this a compelling hypothesis?
• Meritorious students come from a variety of class backgrounds—
schools have little or nothing to do with that.
• But the significance of class is supposed to be minimized once
students arrive on campus.
• To the extent that students maintain private lives during college,
colleges cannot ensure that class plays no role at all.
• But presumably the college’s core practices—which encompass social
as well as academic aspects of college life—are class-neutral and/or
meritocratic.
Pathways are sets of practices reflecting the
demands of different class constituencies (p. 15)
When the university structures the interests of a constituency
into its organizational edifice, we say that it has created a
“pathway.” Pathways are simultaneously social and academic
and coordinate all aspects of the university experience. Just as
roads are built for types of vehicles, pathways are built for
types of students. The party pathway is provisioned to
support the affluent and socially oriented; the mobility
pathway is designed for the pragmatic and vocationally
oriented; and the professional pathway fits ambitious
students from privileged families.
Institutionalized elements of the social scene
 The Greek system, which (a) is “greedy” of its
members, and (b) possesses important resources.
 Enabling factor #1: comparatively dull residence
halls and official campus social events.
 Enabling factor #2: easy majors.
The Greek system in the United States
 Origins in private student organizations as early as the late
1700s.
– Phi Beta Kappa founded at College of William & Mary in 1775.
 First residential fraternity believed to be Alpha Delta Phi
chapter at Cornell University, 1878.
 Federated structure (national organization, local chapters).
The Greek system @ Berkeley
 ≈3,400 undergraduates are members of a fraternity or
sorority (total undergraduate enrollment: 29,311)
 68 officially recognized fraternities (47) & sororities (21)
–18 unrecognized fraternities (11) & sororities (7)
 Of the 68 officially recognized fraternities & sororities,
43 are residential and 25 are non-residential.
Two separate systems of governance
ΑΒΓ
national
organization
(For example purposes
only. There is no actual
Alpha Beta Gamma at
Berkeley.)
IFC MCGC NPHC PHC
Alpha Beta
Gamma
(ΑΒΓ)
UC Berkeley chapter
The Greek system has resources
(p. 53, 5th ¶)
 physical space to congregate socially
 a large supply of alcohol
 a reasonable promise of legal impunity
Fraternities &
sororities @ UC
Berkeley occupy
prime real estate
Being a member of the Greek system is no light matter
Armstrong & Hamilton, Table 2.1
The Greek system’s social calendar:
• Fraternity rush
• Homecoming
• Sorority rush
• Pledging and initiation
• MU Talent
• Spring Break
• MU Game Week
This is a
considerable
demand on
members’
time!
Enabling Factor #1: the comparatively
dull nature of non-Greek social life
Even if women are willing to socialize without alcohol, the university
offers comparatively few opportunities. … [S]terile dormitories are
structured in ways that reduce coed group interaction. University
dinners and movies occur long before most parties begin, and the few
university-sponsored nighttime activities, like the midnight run to WalMart, are seen as uncool. The women on our floor, who loved to dance,
often complained that there was nowhere to do this other than
fraternities.
—Armstrong & Hamilton, pp. 53-54
Enabling Factor #2: easy majors
Chosen majors on A&H’s residence hall floor @ “MU”
Liberal Arts
29%
STEM
4%
Business or Communications
67%
“socialites” vs. “wannabes”
Table 5.1, p. 120. Socialite and wannabe college experiences.
Descriptor
Socialites
Wannabes
Class background
Upper class or uppermiddle class
Upper-middle class or middle
class
Low effort, less demanding
approach
Privilege confers status and
fun; overrides deficits
Primed to hook up; status
and networks are
protective
Downgrade from pragmatic
approach
Rely on raw beauty and savvy;
struggle to measure up
Encumbered by hometown
boyfriends; no protection
from negative experiences
College arena
Academic
Social
Romantic/sexual
“creamed” vs. “blocked”
Table 6.1, p. 150. Striver college experiences.
Descriptor
Creamed
Blocked
Class background
College arena
Academic
Lower-middle class
Lower-middle or working class
Scholarships reduce need
to work; challenging
classes; faculty attention
Opportunities to network
with other less privileged
students
Work cuts into study time;
remedial classes; inadequate
advising
Isolated; no ties to other students;
overwhelmed by diversity
Social
Romantic/sexual
Reject party scene; develop Uncomfortable in party scene;
orientation to later
troubled relationships with
marriage
hometown men
It’s hard to navigate a place like UC Berkeley
without mentoring
“Op-Ed: UC Berkeley needs to support career service programs” The Daily Cal Mar 22 2019
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/22/uc-berkeley-needs-to-support-career-service-programs/
… UC Berkeley is a huge institution. It can strike undergraduates as
impersonal and overwhelming. Many students, particularly those
vulnerable to impostor syndrome, may be tempted to keep their heads
down and “survive” UC Berkeley without drawing any attention to
themselves. But in order to unlock all the benefits of attending a worldclass research university, it is essential for students to reach out and
build personal relationships that will help them achieve their dreams —
and that may even inspire them to set their sights higher than they
previously thought possible.
—Michelle Rabkin, Associate Director of Berkeley Connect
Berkeley Connect is a program aimed at
preventing students from being “blocked”
What difference does mentoring make? Here at UC Berkeley, we’ve had
a unique opportunity to study this question since the Berkeley Connect
program launched in 2014. When students sign up for Berkeley
Connect through one of 13 academic departments, they are matched
with graduate students who serve as their personal mentors for the
semester. Students can talk with their mentors about anything related
to their academic life — goals they hope to achieve, resources they are
seeking, challenges they’re facing, questions they’re afraid to ask their
professors. Berkeley Connect participants meet individually with their
mentors at least twice, with the option to meet more frequently and
also interact with their mentors during biweekly small group meetings.
“Creamed” vs. “blocked” outcomes
At the end of the semester, more than 90 percent of Berkeley Connect
participants report that they have increased their awareness of resources
available to them, deepened their knowledge of an academic discipline,
increased their sense of belonging at UC Berkeley and increased their
confidence that they can succeed here.
Institutional research data show that the positive impact of Berkeley Connect
extends to academic performance. Berkeley Connect attracts a high
percentage of transfer students (almost 50 percent) and underrepresented
minority students (about 25 percent). Transfer students who enroll in
Berkeley Connect, compared to those who do not, are significantly more
likely (+6 percent) to achieve a high GPA (3.5-4.0) and significantly less likely
(-6 percent) to have a lower GPA (2.0-2.9). Underrepresented minority
students who enroll in Berkeley Connect in their first year, compared with
those who don’t, also achieve a higher GPA and are half as likely to drop out
in their third year.
Two different “achievement” experiences
Pathway 
Mobility
Professional
Students
Working/Middle classes
Upper classes
Logic
Academic Achievement
Academic Achievement
Preparation
Sometimes inadequate,
due to lack of resources
Considerable, e.g. “private SAT preparation,
tutors and coaches, freedom from paid
employment, top high schools, parental
connections” (p. 18, 2nd ¶)
College
experience
Guidance/intervention from family & other
Active advising/direction by
social connections; establishment of close ties
college
with faculty in seminars
Fields of study
Vocational (e.g., nursing,
accounting, teaching)
Professional/Liberal Arts
Class Project
Upward mobility
Re-production of privilege
Why would MU and other
flagship publics support
class-stratified “pathways”
through college?
What do flagship state universities do and why
do they do what they do?
organizational behavior
shaped by the field
individual
repertoires
(Bourdieu,
habitus)
the FIELD
consequences of
(possibly not rational!)
“institutionalized rules”
(Meyer & Rowan)
The organizational field for “Midwest University” (MU)
peers:
other colleges
& universities
imperative:
reputation, prestige
donors
state
legislatures
public
opinion
state
legislatures
households
MU
How do pathways re-produce inequality?
Class Projects
Midwest University
upper class (I):
reproduction of
exclusionary privilege
ARMSTRONGAcademic
& HAMILTON:
core
THIS IS NOT WHAT
HAPPENS IN
COLLEGE.
upper class (II):
reproduction
through achievement
lower-middle,
working class:
upward mobility
Differences in
outcomes
determined strictly
by differences in
academic
achievement—not
class privilege
meritocratic
athletics
social
life
student
clubs
not unimportant, but presumably outside the core function of the university
How do pathways re-produce inequality?
Class Projects
upper class (I):
reproduction of
exclusionary privilege
upper class (II):
reproduction
through achievement
lower-middle,
working class:
upward mobility
Midwest University
social life,
party scene
mobility pathway
party pathway
upper class (I): social
closure re-produced
professional pathway
upper class (II): status
re-produced through
achievement
academic
core
meritocratic
lower-middle, working
class: still excluded
from upper class strata
Two contemporary attempts at establishing a broader
picture of U.S. higher education and class mobility
• The New York Times’ “College Access Index” project
– How well are the top American colleges & universities doing at ensuring
access by students from lower-income households?
• The Equality of Opportunity Project
https://opportunityinsights.org/
– If we can longitudinally track students from lower-income households from
college to about 10 years after college, we can make some estimate of how
good particular colleges are not only at ensuring access—but seeing how
successful they have actually been at promoting upward mobility.
– We can compute a Mobility Rating for each college & university, which is an
estimate of its contribution to upward mobility over the last ~30 years.
Which top schools in the U.S. are most committed
to wide socioeconomic access?
“Top Colleges Doing the Most for the American Dream” The New York Times May 25, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/25/sunday-review/opinion-pell-table.html
Rank
College
Freshman class Pell grad share
Net price for
mid. income
College Access
Index (1=avg)
Endowment
per student
1
UC Irvine
5,400
39
$12k
1.90
$11.1k
2
UC Santa Barbara
4,600
31
$13k
1.61
$7.1k
3
UC Davis
5,100
30
$13k
1.60
$11.2k
4
UC San Diego
5,200
29
$11k
1.58
$22.2k
5
UC Los Angeles
5,700
26
$11k
1.52
$54.2k
6
University of Florida
6,500
22
$8k
1.46
$33.3k
7
Amherst College
500
22
$9k
1.44
$1.141m
8
Pomona College
500
20
$7k
1.43
$1.288m
9
UC Berkeley
4,700
22
$11k
1.38
$46.3k
10
Harvard University
1,700
15
$5k
1.36
$1.51m
The organizational field for “Midwest University” (MU)
peers:
other colleges
& universities
imperative:
reputation, prestige
donors
state
legislatures
public
opinion
state
legislatures
households
MU
But, an uptick
in state
spending on
higher ed?
“Buoyed by Solid Economies, Most
States Spend More on Higher
Education” Inside Higher Ed Jan 21
2019
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Buoyed-by-SolidEconomies/245520
California
may actually
be one of the
better states
in terms of
commitment
to public
higher ed
Percentagewise, Colorado
and Hawaii has
increased recent
spending more
than
California—but
they started
from a much
smaller base
Raj Chetty
Stanford University
“Mobility Report Cards: The Role of
Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility”
https://opportunityinsights.org/
John N. Friedman
Brown University
Emmanuel Saez
UC Berkeley
Nicholas Turner
U.S. Dept. of Treasury
Danny Yagan
UC Berkeley
NBER
• Looking at access is very important—but this says nothing about
how successful colleges are at moving students from low-income
households into higher-income households after they graduate.
• Chetty et al: use a combination of anonymized tax return data and
U.S. Department of Education data to track:
– where students went to school
– where in the income distribution their parents were
– where in the income distribution the student is by their early 30s
• For each school, the mobility rate:
– measures how well schools effect intergenerational mobility
– access: the proportion of their students from bottom-income-quintile
households
– success rate: the proportion of students who went from the bottom-incomequintile to the top income quintile after graduation
– mobility rate = access x success rate
No one metric can capture the entirety of the story of
socioeconomic mobility in the U.S. … BUT, it helps to
have one anyway, to simplify the discussion.
Bottom
20%
U.S. households, by income percentile
“success rate”:
What percentage of
the entire American
population went from
the bottom 20% of
households by income
to the top 20% of
households by
income?
Top
20%
Harvard University
4-year private, Ivy League
Cambridge, MA
University of California, Berkeley
4-year “flagship” public
Berkeley, CA
State University of New York
at Stony Brook
4-year midtier public
Stony Brook, NY
Glendale Community College
2-year public
Glendale, CA (north of downtown L.A.)
Harvard:
• 14.5% of students from households in
the top 1% of income distribution
• 13.5% of students from households in
the bottom 50% of income
distribution
R. Chetty, J.N. Friedman, E. Saez, N. Turner & D. Yagan (2017), “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility”
What is the relationship between children’s
and parent’s income?
Child’s income
No upward mobility.
Your parents’ situation
is likely your situation.
(slope  1.0)
Child’s income
high
high
Upward mobility. Your parents’
situation is not strongly related
to your situation.
(slope  0.0)
low
low
low
Parent’s income
high
low
Parent’s income
high
These lines are a
lot “flatter” than
the solid grey dot
line.
Most colleges
“work”—the
question is
whether
students from
lower-income
households
have access!
Which types of
schools account
for the most
“success” stories?
“success”: students from
bottom-income quintile
households who go on to reach
the top income quintile by their
early 30s, after graduation.
• UC Berkeley
• “Midwest University”?
Some of Armstrong &
Hamilton’s “blocked”
students wound up
here—and wound up
the better for it.
What if there were no barriers to class mobility?
(upwards or downwards)
20% chance
20% chance
20% chance
Bottom
20%
20% chance
U.S. households, by income percentile
20% chance
Top
20%
If there were truly no
barriers to mobility in
society, then the % of
people who came from
households in the
bottom income quintile
but went into the top
income quintile would
be 4%. (One-fifth of the
bottom 20%, or 0.2 x 0.2
= 0.04 = 4%.)
Harvard:
1.76% MR
UC Berkeley:
4.89% MR
Glendale C.C.:
7.08% MR
SUNY Stony Brook:
8.41% MR
Mobility report cards for all
2,199 US colleges
(via Professor Danny Yagan’s website)
https://sites.google.com/site/dannyyagan/college
Dispiriting coda to the story
• In part because of the attention brought to class inequality in
admissions by the Equality of Opportunity Project, schools have
started paying a lot more attention to the number of admitted
students who come from lower-income households.
• The metric most commonly used is % of Pell Grant recipients in the
incoming class.
• As a sign of how institutionalized this has become, U.S. News & World
Report and other ratings systems have started incorporating this into
their rankings.
The institutionalization of the emphasis on Pell
Grant recipients has arguably not gone quite right
“Catherine Rampell: Colleges have been under pressure to admit needier kids. It’s backfiring.” The Washington Post Jan 24 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-just-a-few-dollars-can-keep-many-kids-from-going-tocollege/2019/01/24/9264c5c2-201b-11e9-9145-3f74070bbdb9_story.html
(Based on research by Caroline Hoxby & Sarah Turner, “Measuring opportunity in U.S. higher education” https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/measuring-opportunity-us-higher-education)
2008, before the Equality of Opportunity Project
drew attention to % of Pell Grant recipients enrolled
2016, after % of Pell Grant recipients became a way
that schools understood that they were evaluated
Focus on Pell Grant
recipients is
institutionalized … even if it
doesn’t quite solve the
problem of class inequality
in admissions
Nothing can escape us.
Not even concerted
attempts to rationally
address class inequality
in college admissions in
the U.S.
Paul DiMaggio
Walter Powell