scholarly journals Divergent Approaches to Access: How Selective College Admissions Offices Recruit Lower-Income, First-Generation, and Working-Class Students

2021 ◽  
pp. 36-49
Author(s):  
Hannah Gunther ◽  
Janel Benson

In recent years, selective colleges and universities have made diversifying their student bodies a top priority, yet the class diversity on these campuses has barely shifted. While most research on class disparities in college admissions focuses on student explanations, this study seeks to understand how campus admissions approaches to recruitment may also contribute to why so few lower-income, first-generation, and/or working-class students (LIFGWC students) attend selective colleges. To address this question, we conducted interviews with seven admissions officers from selective campuses with both relatively strong and weak records of LIFGWC students recruitment. Institutions with stronger records of recruiting LIFGWC students actively sought out new initiatives to make their college more accessible for LIFGWC students, and these actions were motivated by a shared focus on improving larger societal inequality. Although campuses with weaker records also expanded their recruitment strategies, their efforts were often piecemeal and motivated by competition for students and institutional rankings rather than a larger mission to improve diversity and equity. These findings suggest that institutional missions and philosophies are central to increasing access.  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mauricio Munguia Gomez ◽  
Emma Levine

Across nine main studies (N = 7,024) and nine supplemental studies (N = 3,279), we find that people make systematically different choices when choosing between individuals and choosing between equivalent policies that affect individuals. In college admissions and workplace hiring contexts, we randomly assigned participants to select one of two individuals or choose one of two selection policies. People were significantly more likely to choose a policy that would favor a disadvantaged candidate over a candidate with objectively higher achievements than they were to favor a specific disadvantaged candidate over a specific candidate with objectively higher achievements. We document these divergent choices among admissions officers, working professionals, and lay people, using both within-subject and between-subject designs, and across a range of stimuli and decision contexts. We find evidence that these choices diverge because thinking about policies causes people to rely more on their values and less on the objective attributes of the options presented, which overall, leads more people to favor disadvantaged candidates in selection contexts. This research documents a new type of preference reversal in important, real-world decision contexts, and has practical and theoretical implications for understanding why our choices so frequently violate our espoused policies.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Rubin

Working-class students tend to be less socially integrated at university than middle-class students (Rubin, 2012a). The present research investigated two potential reasons for this working-class social exclusion effect. First, working-class students may have fewer finances available to participate in social activities. Second, working-class students tend to be older than middle-class students and, consequently, they are likely to have more work and/or childcare commitments. These additional commitments may prevent them from attending campus which, in turn, reduces their opportunity for social integration. These predictions were confirmed among undergraduate students at an Australian university (N = 433) and a USA university (N = 416). Strategies for increasing working-class students’ social integration at university are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document