I just finished reading Laura Hamilton’s article More is More or More is Less: Parental Financial Investments During College (published behind academic firewalls in American Sociological Review, Vol, 78, 2012).
Introducing her study, she writes:
Because parental aid increases access to college, students with parental assistance will likely display a wider range of ability and motivation. In contrast, students who make it to college with little to no parental help may not only be exceptionally talented but also uniquely motivated — for which there is no good empirical proxy.
She found, indeed, that students receiving more money from their parents while in college are more likely finish their degree but also more likely to have lower GPAs than other students.
I think that this is such a smart study because:
- It questions the long-standing assumption that generous parenting is inherently good for students.
- It concedes that upper-middle class ways of being are not the model for all other students. Working, for example, may actually contribute to students’ investment in higher ed.
- It puts all the fuss about things like SAT exams into context. The SAT is a low predictor of eventual success in college for many populations, yet many colleges continue to require entrance exams. If the amount of financial support that students get will get from parents does predict eventual GPA, might admissions preferences not then be given to those students who will *not* be supported as generously by parents, if the goal of admissions is to admit those most likely to succeed?
Researchers invest a great deal of time studying those on the margins of formal schooling. It is good to also see studies looking more closely at those considered to be the norm.