Caroline Hoxby (pictured), a Stanford U. economist, and Sarah Turner, an economist at the U. of Virginia, wrote a new paper arguing that colleges are oversimplifying the quest to raise the enrollment of low-income students.
A new report by a pair of researchers known for their work on low-income students suggests colleges are thinking about serving that group in the wrong way.
The findings — from Caroline M. Hoxby, a professor of economics at Stanford University, and Sarah Turner, a professor of economics at the University of Virginia — come at a time when colleges, especially elite ones, have faced increasing public pressure to admit more low-income students.
We are unable to fully display the content of this page.
The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows
javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.
Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page.
You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one,
or subscribe.
If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com
Rob Kim, Getty Images
Caroline Hoxby (pictured), a Stanford U. economist, and Sarah Turner, an economist at the U. of Virginia, wrote a new paper arguing that colleges are oversimplifying the quest to raise the enrollment of low-income students.
A new report by a pair of researchers known for their work on low-income students suggests colleges are thinking about serving that group in the wrong way.
The findings — from Caroline M. Hoxby, a professor of economics at Stanford University, and Sarah Turner, a professor of economics at the University of Virginia — come at a time when colleges, especially elite ones, have faced increasing public pressure to admit more low-income students.
But the duo also urged institutions to use thoughtful and data-driven approaches to better serve low-income students. What happened instead, Hoxby and Turner told The Chronicle on Friday, is that colleges rushed to increase their overall percentage of low-income students, and seemed to miss the bit about careful planning.
ADVERTISEMENT
“People at some level didn’t pay attention to what we said in those articles,” Hoxby said. “That message got completely lost.”
Specifically, the researchers challenge the idea that colleges should be judged successful based primarily on the percentage of their students whose families are in the bottom quintile of national earners or who are eligible for Pell Grants, the main federal student-aid program based on need.
Hoxby and Turner also critique the often-cited intergenerational-mobility measurement, a method pioneered by a Stanford economist named Raj Chetty and popularized in The New York Times. That gauge measures how well institutions’ low-income students climb income quintiles later in life.
A Warping Metric
But how institutions do on that metric, according to Hoxby and Turner, is warped by the fact that colleges aren’t picking from the same applicant pool. In other words, colleges that serve populations with a larger percentage of low-income students end up enrolling low-income students, and are rewarded on the metric. Meanwhile, colleges located in affluent areas are penalized.
ADVERTISEMENT
“The universities would be rewarded based on their circumstances, not their behavior or effort,” they wrote.
Geography influences outcomes too, the researchers say. In California, which has a wide range of incomes, a college may have an easier job of proving that its alumni increase their earnings later in life. That’s more difficult, Hoxby and Turner say, in a state like Wisconsin, which doesn’t have a high population of extremely low or extremely high earners. And if that’s the case, it’s harder to prove economic mobility.
Hoxby said the intention of Chetty and his fellow researchers was good, but “they’re sort of getting it exactly wrong.”
Opportunity Insights, the nonprofit organization that developed the intergenerational-mobility measure, and that Chetty leads, did not answer a request for comment on Friday.
The researchers propose what they call a more-nuanced method of quantifying economic mobility.
ADVERTISEMENT
It chops a state’s potential applicants into five-percentile segments — rather than quintiles — and measures that against the income profiles of a college’s in-state students. The more closely the two pictures resemble each other, the better the college represents the state’s population. Using that method, colleges would get a better idea of the student populations they’re not enrolling.
The chase to enroll more low-income students can have unintended consequences, they said. Students who are just above the bottom 20th percentile might receive less support from a college that’s seeking solely to increase students from the bottom quintile. Those just above eligibility for a Pell Grant could find themselves arbitrarily cut out of the equation.
Hoxby and Turner stressed that their research is not meant to be prescriptive. They have no desire, they said, to gauge which colleges are doing well or badly. Rather, they said, they want institutions to set their own goals. The hope is to provide a new measuring stick that will allow colleges and their constituents to hold the institutions accountable.
Chris Quintana was a breaking-news reporter for The Chronicle. He graduated from the University of New Mexico with a bachelor’s degree in creative writing.
