In the world of higher education there is good news and some not so good. First the good: Practically all forecast analyses made by experts, from UNESCO to OECD, and also at the national level in most countries, predict that, during the coming decade, worldwide enrollment in higher education will continue to increase, thus benefiting more people than ever. The not so good news is that although the number of higher-education students will increase, unfortunately, it looks as though higher education will remain primarily elitist as it is today. It is evident that despite many efforts, concrete interventions, and a good number of initiatives–some of them very successful and scalable–and in an environment full of rhetoric and politics, the sad reality seems to be that gaps between countries may widen, and, moreover, gaps within countries between the better-off and the ones which are not as well-to-do, will continue to be present. It is time to recognize that this is a serious problem and that we must address it with courage and more innovative solutions.
Let’s review some cases compiled by Jamil Salmi: Chile dramatically increased its national enrollment in higher education in a very short period of time (38 percent of college-age Chileans in 2006, in comparison with only 16 percent in 1990), but the enrollment rates by income quintiles show concerning gaps, considering that only 19.5 percent of college-age Chileans with the lowest income corresponding to the first quintile are enrolled in higher education in comparison with 67.5 percent of the ones from the richest quintile. In Mexico, only 1 percent of 15-24-year-olds from the poorest quintile attend tertiary education in comparison with 32 percent of those who belong to the richest quintile. Similar cases are present in many countries not only in the developing world but also in the more developed countries. In France, for instance, the probability of gaining access to the prestigious and selective Grandes Écoles is 11 times higher for children of professionals than for those of blue-collar workers. In the U.S., the likelihood of attending an Ivy League university is 8.3 percent for college-age students in the lowest economic quintile and 50 percent for the ones belonging to the wealthiest quintile.
And here is where arguments in favor of elitism and self-selectivity solely based on a perceived merit without consideration to a variety of socio-economic contextual factors become flawed. Education is, and will continue to be, the single most important factor for social and economic mobility in our societies all over the world. Lack of education is the major factor impeding mobility and keeping individuals chained in a vicious circle of poverty and marginalization. Although there are variations by country, numbers paint a very clear picture. For instance, in an inter-generational analysis of the mobility of males, the proportion of people found in the poorest quintile that remains in a subsequent generation at the same level of poverty reaches 48 percent in Mexico, 40 percent in the U.S., 34 percent in Chile, and only 26 percent in Sweden.
As expressed by Tricia Jenkins, director of the International Centre for Excellence in Educational Opportunities at University of Liverpool, around the world on some streets eight out of 10 young people go to college while on other streets fewer than eight in a 100 young people do the same. In some cases, those streets may be located very close to one another within the same city, but the distance is enormous in terms of the expectations and chances of success of their inhabitants. We should seriously ask ourselves if there are ways in which societies can find better and more effective ways to compensate for segregating factors such as race, gender, or just zip code, and in so doing become more equitable.
Some argue that this is alright and that, ultimately higher education is elitist by nature. Consequently, they argue, only a few should have the privilege of being part of the exclusive club of highly educated people in the world. They even sometimes argue that if a student doesn’t want to study, it is merely due to a lack of motivation. Others, on the contrary, argue that the greater the number of people who are educated, the better-off the entire society will be. More importantly, the argument is made that policies and socio-economic structures in our countries prevent a fair shake for most and, by consequence, privilege the few at the expense of the many prolonging stratification and inequality in our societies.
These are among the issues discussed this past week during an international workshop held at the University of Arizona and co-convened by the International Association of Universities (IAU) and the World Bank with the additional support of the Lumina Foundation for Education. At this event, higher-education institution representatives from 10 countries who have been participating in a year-long effort to pilot an institutional self-assessment instrument on equitable access and success in higher education, met to analyze the current status of policies in higher education among various institutions and national contexts based on the results of their initial self-assessments.
There is hope. Obviously, work needs to be done at all levels and beginning right from the early stages in the lives of students. A variety of successful initiatives demonstrate that a more effective access-retention-success triangle can be established by bringing together the right partners, connecting them through sound policies, and involving the parties who are directly interested–not only institutions, governments, and the business sector–but much more importantly parents and the students themselves since early stages of their lives. In Europe, for instance, a major move to create so-called Children’s Universities is helping younger students–mostly from underserved populations–to gain the belief that the higher-education dream is a real possibility. In Peru, the Hatu Ñan Program (the Great Path), sponsored by the Ford Foundation, is allowing indigenous communities to make the educational aspirations of their students possible. In Liverpool, England, the now famous Professor Fluffy helps teachers, parents, and elementary school students, in economically depressed areas bring the university to the community. In the U.S., at the University of Arizona, the College Academy for Parents provides awareness and key information to parents of middle-school students on how to prepare for college. Those are just a few examples. The challenge is how to sustain these initiatives oriented towards greater inclusiveness, how to measure their success, how to replicate them in other contexts, and how to increase their overall impact.
Also, in academic communities, more work is needed in avoiding the temptation to simply associate educational quality with selectivity and elitism. Obviously, what I refer to as the “madness of rankings” doesn’t help much. If our institutions keep thinking that quality can only be achieved by constricting the access pipeline and becoming more selective, we are literally ignoring the real problem and, consequently, the real solutions. For instance, the University of Arizona–currently listed among the top 100 universities in the world according to Times Higher Education or the Shanghai rankings–could easily jump various levels in standing just by becoming more selective in its access policy. But would this be concordant with its Land-Grant mission? If we consider that every year only about a half of graduates from high school are academically eligible to attend the University of Arizona, it would be a disservice to the state to simply ignore this reality by becoming more selective in the admissions process. A socially responsible action is to work with the previous levels of education in order to improve the academic eligibility of high-school graduates.
At the same time, we should disregard the flawed notions that many students don’t think it is worth it to pursue higher education, or that parents don’t think that education is possible for their kids, or that only education provided by universities is worth it. While there is evidence that many potential students and their parents view higher-education opportunities as fleeting and at times unlikely, the now iconic Goal 2025 report published by the Lumina Foundation reminds us of the fact that 55 percent of Americans now believe that obtaining a college degree is the only way to succeed, in comparison with only 30 percent in 2000.
Comprehensive work is required. As expressed by Mandy Savitz-Romer of Harvard University, more effective outreach implies the need to implement a variety of activities beginning at levels preceding those of higher education, in the areas of academic preparation, awareness and aspiration building, personal planning and preparation, and structural interventions.
A crucial element that is sometimes ignored is evidence. That’s why the work being done by IAU with the collaboration of a variety of institutions around the world is so important. Unless we have better information and sound self-assessment tools, we will likely continue to make noise about how “wonderful” our respective institutions are in addressing this issue so critical for the future of our societies, but we won’t be able to make our case effectively. Let’s be frank. Currently, most institutions have no sound and consistent evidence to demonstrate that the outcomes of their activities in the area of access-retention-success in higher education are happening due to, independently of, or despite their institutional policies and programs. Frequently the evidence is confined to successful anecdotal references. But, is this enough?
The issue is very critical. As indicated by Eva Egron-Polak, secretary general of the International Association of Universities, during her opening remarks at the international workshop held at the University of Arizona: “On the successful and sustainable expansion of who can enroll and graduate from higher education rests the future of all knowledge-based economies and the future of social stability and cohesion in all nations and internationally. Making sure that our higher-education systems serve our increasingly diverse populations is also an essential step towards building a society that understands and appreciates cultural differences and is based on the rule of law, justice, and democracy.” Do we need more reasons than those?
