Needs Blind/Blind to Student Needs
November 26, 2008
There’s an interesting article in Today’s Inside Higher Education newsletter on “needs blind” admissions policies. While promising applicants that their financial need will not be considered in admissions decisions, most public and private colleges then offer financial aid packages with considerable “gaps” between need and actual costs.
Further, different groups of students (athletes, legacies, under-represented ethnic groups) are more likely to receive different sorts of financial aid packages (more grants and scholarships, fewer loans) than other students — and first-generation students are infrequently targeted for either full financial aid for for more favorable “packages”.
And finally, in these times of soaring college costs, the shift from needs-based to merit-based financial aid continues:
In 1994, when NACAC conducted a similar survey, colleges reported that 27 percent of their institutional aid funds were purely merit-based and 66 percent based on need. In the current survey, 43 percent of institutional aid funds were based on factors other than need, compared to 49 percent need-based.
At my institution, there is speculation that tuition will soar in the coming years under withering state budget cuts.
I’m not at all clear how, given headlines like that in the paper and the complex and contradictory system of financial aid, first-generation students can even imagine themselves getting in and getting through.
Social Class Links 11/21/2008
November 21, 2008
-
Articles on social class in higher education.
Social Class Links 11/20/2008
November 20, 2008
-
Form John Russo, more on unions, the election, and race among white working class voters.
-
Class Matters – Social Class in the United States of America – The New York Times
The oft-sited NYT series on class frm a few years ago. Good teaching resources.
Digital and Political Divides
November 17, 2008
I’ve been reading Henry Jenkins’ Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (link to PDF here). Jenkins and his team at Project New Media Literacies speak of the need to prepare people to critically consume and — even more importantly — to produce new creative forms of media for broad distribution within new participatory technologies.
And simultaneously, I’ve been reading of the profound ways in which these participatory technologies are changing political life.
In the presidential campaign, the Obama campaign’s use of the web enabled them to bypass TV networks, party structures, and major fundraisers to build grassroots support and transparent communication in ways that will also now shape how the Obama administration governs.
And this past weekend, the user-generated website Join the Impact was central to rapidly organizing the international grassroots protests against California’s passage of Prop 8, “astonishing long-time activists with the power and speed with which [the web] gets their message out” according to the New York Times.
So when it’s with consternation that I read Jenkins’ warnings of new forms of the digital divide. Jenkins writes of the new “participation gap”: As policy makers have counted computers in schools toward the goal of providing “access” to technology to all kids, middle-class kids, with unfettered access to computers, adult support, and broadband at home are using computers in ways inaccessible to kids whose access it limited to public, filtered computer networks at schools and libraries.
Jenkins writes:
More often than not, those youth who have developed the most comfort with the online word are the ones who dominate classroom use of computers, pushing aside the less technically skilled classmates. We would be wrong, however, to see this as a simple binary: youth how have technological access and those who do not. [Researchers] note, for example, that game systems make their way into growing number of working-class homes, even if laptops and personal computers do not. Working-class youth may have access some of the benefits of play described here, but they may still lack the ability to produce and disseminate their own media.
In these new political times, technological savvy is enfranchisement. And enfranchisement should not be dependent upon the resources that one happens to have at home.
And when I go to my teach my tech class tomorrow, I’ll again hear of computers gathering dust in the corners of classrooms in diverse schools, because no one knows how to use them, because they don’t work, because they’re considered an “extra”, because in schools, people have not yet caught on to the cultural shifts of this new participatory media culture.
Opportunity
November 17, 2008
Mike Rose has written a thought-provoking, post-election post on opportunity, the limitations of pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentalities, and education. He writes:
The creation of opportunity involves a good deal of thoughtful work on
the part of the provider, and, as well, demands significant effort on
the part of the recipient. The creating of social programs,
compensatory interventions, and the like are not, as some conservative
writers claim, a giveaway, a soft entry into the meritocracy. If done
well, the creation of opportunity in education (and this applies to
other domains as well) also requires great effort, even courage. What
that special program or compensatory intervention assures is that one’s
effort is not just sound and fury, but is directed and assisted toward
achievement.and this:…it does not diminish the importance of individual commitment and effort
to also acknowledge the tremendous role played in achievement by the
kind, distribution, and accessibility of institutions, programs, and
other resources. And these resources, as everybody knows, are not
equally available. Particularly now.