Undermatching theory — the idea that smart but disadvantaged students pass up important opportunities by attending less-selective colleges — is well intentioned. On the surface, opening pathways for more low-income, high-achieving students to attend elite colleges seems like an important step forward for equality in American society. Too many prestigious colleges enroll disturbingly low percentages of Pell grantees and students of color, so we should applaud initiatives such as Princeton’s recent commitment to improve its socioeconomic diversity.
Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.
Don’t have an account? Sign up now.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
Undermatching theory — the idea that smart but disadvantaged students pass up important opportunities by attending less-selective colleges — is well intentioned. On the surface, opening pathways for more low-income, high-achieving students to attend elite colleges seems like an important step forward for equality in American society. Too many prestigious colleges enroll disturbingly low percentages of Pell grantees and students of color, so we should applaud initiatives such as Princeton’s recent commitment to improve its socioeconomic diversity.
Unfortunately, undermatching theory is also pernicious in its not-so-subtle disparagement of the non-elite institutions that serve significant numbers of low-income African-American and Latino students. Advocates of undermatching theory claim that low-income students who are high academic achievers should enroll in institutions that have “name recognition, more financial resources, and oftentimes an alumni network connected to powerful places,” as Adam Harris wrote in The Atlantic this spring. Colleges without such perceived advantages are thus deemed inadequate, raising doubts about whether students should enroll in them at all.
But in fact, as a recent report from the American Council on Education reveals, colleges that specialize in educating low-income students of color — grouped under the heading “Minority Serving Institutions” — are better at moving students up the economic ladder despite having fewer resources than more elite institutions.
Nevertheless, elitist disdain for “lesser” schools is not new. Undermatching theory reminds me of a job interview I had in my third year of law school for a clerkship with a local judge. As the judge reviewed my dossier, I was mentally preparing to explain my lackluster grades in my first two years at Georgetown Law. But the judge shocked me when he demanded to know the answer to only one question: “Why did a smart student like you pick such a no-name college?”
In 1970 when I went to college, Trinity in Washington (my alma mater, where I am now president) was the go-to place for Catholic women on the East Coast, and a full-tuition scholarship made it possible. It probably did not occur to the judge that women’s colleges, Catholic colleges, historically black colleges, and similar institutions existed because of the exclusionary practices of elite colleges, conditions that continue in more subtle ways to this day. It also did not occur to the judge that the graduates of such institutions were at least as good as, if not often better than, graduates of more prestigious schools. Brand names have power.
Ironically, undermatching theory, while intending to remediate this historic inequity, reinforces the implicit bias that higher education’s caste system has assiduously cultivated for centuries. While appearing to make prestigious colleges more open to a diversified student body, in fact, undermatching theory exalts the elitism of a relatively narrow band of institutions, opens a slender chute for a very few students to enter, and slams the door on everyone else.
This diminishment of non-elite institutions reinforces the implicit biases of employers and others who distribute society’s prizes, exacerbating rather than eliminating social inequality. The bias displayed by that judge so long ago exists to this very day in countless job interviews and selection committees. Too often, non-elite institutions and the students they serve experience discrimination when foundations and organizations choose to collaborate only with the elites. This deprives colleges that need more support of the money and networks essential to sustain and improve their work with low-income students, a problem the ACE report seeks to remedy by calling for more funding for these effective but underresourced colleges.
High-achieving, low-income students of color are not some baubles to flaunt as proof of an institution’s good intentions on diversity. The only question that really matters is how well the student will learn at any given college, and the answer depends on the student and the campus environment. Undermatching theory assumes that the students “allowed” to have access to prestigious colleges will adapt and become elites, too, just like their wealthier white peers. The discussion does not stop to ask what the students might want, or how the elite campuses might need to change to support the new characteristics of this different group of students.
Proponents of undermatching theory point to the higher graduation rates of elite institutions but fail to acknowledge the fact that the graduation rate is simply an index of admissions risk. A high graduation rate is less about what the institution does and more about the privileges students bring into their collegiate experience. Institutions with lower graduation rates dare to take more students with big risk factors, and they concentrate more time and effort in developing tactics for student success.
ADVERTISEMENT
Universities such as Georgia State that have made considerable investments in student-success programs illustrate the reality that getting an at-risk student from enrollment to completion is a multidimensional commitment requiring a great deal of coordination among many faculty and staff members. Colleges that work routinely with such students know that even very smart low-income students of color often feel inadequate academically and socially, and sometimes they sabotage themselves. Just being on a prestigious campus does not eradicate the challenges, and may, in fact, exacerbate them if the institution fails to engage in the change necessary to serve these students well.
The campus environment is key: whether faculty members are willing to engage in profound pedagogical and curricular change in order to teach a broader range of students more effectively; whether the advising and cocurricular support systems are sufficiently robust to provide great assistance to students who bring new challenges to the campus scene; whether the rest of the student population is sufficiently generous of spirit to welcome a more diverse group of peers.
University presidents like to say that higher education is the great leveler of American society, that anyone can succeed as long as he or she has the grit and fortitude to persist in college. But our obsession with rankings and prestige contributes to greater social stratification and fosters discrimination in favor of those who attend the “right” colleges. Ironically, such elitism may be contributing to the current wave of declining collegiate enrollments as some Americans express disdain for higher education as too elitist, and not worth the time and expense.
Certainly, creating opportunities for more low-income students to attend more prestigious universities is a worthy strategy — so long as it does not occur at the expense of other institutions. But the mainstream focus of higher education must remain on enlarging the total pipeline of learning opportunities across all institutions to meet the increasingly sophisticated intellectual demands of the future national and global society. We need all institutions, not just a privileged few, to be doing even more to reach this goal.
Patricia McGuire is president of Trinity Washington University.
