Rewarding Strivers

In Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook section, I outlined five myths about who gets into college.  The myths include:

1. Admissions officers have figured out how to reward merit above connections and wealth.
2. Disadvantages based on race are still the biggest obstacles to getting into college.
3. Generous financial aid policies are the key to boosting socioeconomic diversity.
4. Selective colleges are too expensive and aren’t worth the investment.
5. With more students going to college, we’re closer to the goal of equal opportunity.

Most of the data in the piece are drawn from a new volume that The Century Foundation will releasing at the National Press Club on June 17 entitled, Rewarding Strivers: Helping Low-Income Students Succeed in College (invitation to the forum is here). The book includes a fascinating chapter by Edward B. Fiske on “The Carolina Covenant,” the University of North Carolina’s innovative program to provide financial aid and support to students earning below 200% of the poverty line.  The volume also has a ground-breaking chapter by Anthony P. Carnevale and Jeff Strohl on growing stratification in higher education and an analysis quantifying (in terms of SAT points) the various economic and racial disadvantages that students face.  The research is a revised and updated version of Carnevale’s controversial strivers research from the late 1990s.  Carnevale and Strohl’s point is not that we should abandon the SAT, but rather that a student’s scores and grades should be considered in the context or what obstacles she has overcome.  Colleges and universities claim they already do this, but research suggests they do not.  Shouldn’t they?