Press Releases

Home > Press Releases > Lumina Response

RESPONSE TO LUMINA FOUNDATION REPORT: "Unequal Opportunity:
Disparities in College Access Among the 50 States"

Note: From January 4 to 8, 2002 contacts can be reached at Sanibel Harbour Resort & Spa, (941) 466-4000

STATEMENT BY RICHARD EKMAN
PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGES
January 7, 2002

The Lumina Foundation's report released today that evaluates "accessibility" for all colleges and universities is designed to help state policymakers "determine to what extent the current system of higher education provides access to a college education for its residents." However, Unequal Opportunity misses the mark on offering concrete recommendations to help state governments make decisions that will make a difference in access and affordability.

It is state governments, not the leaders of private institutions, that can truly make a difference in both access and affordability, but the report seems to misunderstand the states' role, and in so doing misses a key opportunity. Many private institutions are more than ready to serve additional numbers of median- and low-income students, if state governments would either provide appropriate student financial aid or establish more of a level playing field through their tuition policies at public institutions.

The report's authors failed to consider degree completion as a critical part of their research -- a significant design flaw. They do not seem to understand that independent institutions nationwide are already doing a great deal, not only through institutional student aid but also through a variety of academic and personal support programs, to ensure that students not only enter educational programs but can complete them. The facts are these: Average family income of students at private colleges and universities is lower than that of students at state institutions; private colleges and universities enroll fewer than one-quarter of all undergraduates but account for nearly one-third of the graduates; first-generation college students at private colleges are much more likely to complete a bachelor's degree within five years (63 percent) than at public institutions (46 percent); and attrition rates are higher at public institutions than at private institutions-at every level of institutional affluence and selectivity.

Given the demonstrable superior performance of private institutions in providing access to low-income students, it is startling that the Lumina report does not discuss the policy implications for state governments that are concerned with improving access to higher education. State governments are now cutting spending as tax revenues fall, and higher education is no longer a top priority. Establishing new branch campuses of state systems of higher education and allowing existing, large institutions with dismal attrition rates to grow even larger-never cost-effective options-are now simply unaffordable.

Meanwhile, such considerations as the advantage of filling underutilized capacity at private institutions at only marginal cost to the state, the extraordinary subsidy through private funds of students at these institutions, and the absence of any burden to the taxpayer should have led the report's authors to put forward a much wider range of policy recommendations.

Compounding the report's failure to consider degree completion is the choice made by the authors to include, along with their written analysis, state-by-state tables listing individual institutions, including private institutions, even though the written analysis focuses only on state policy involving public institutions. The disjuncture between the written analysis and the tables, which list virtually all private colleges and universities, as well as many flagship public institutions, as "unaffordable," is a disservice to all concerned, including prospective students, parents, and high school counselors. The report could cause considerable damage to the ongoing efforts of colleges, financial aid and scholarship services, and others that are working hard to point out that college is, in fact, affordable by most people.

TALKING POINTS ON LUMINA FOUNDATION REPORT

Lumina Foundation of Indianapolis, IN has embargoed for release on January 7, 2002 a report titled, Unequal Opportunity: Disparities in College Access Among the 50 States, another in its New Agenda Series of reports.

This report, authored by Samuel M. Kipp, III, Derek V. Price, and Jill K. Wohlford, portrays for state policymakers the disparities in prospective postsecondary education opportunities. The report focuses on available options for four key groups:

1. traditional college-age, dependent children from low-income families;
2. dependent children from median-income families;
3. non-traditional adults who are independent, but have only low-income resources; and
4. non-traditional adults who are independent, but have only median-income resources.

The study classified 2,800 public and private institutions, both two-year and four-year, in the 50 states and District of Columbia according to their accessibility to typical residents, defined in terms of both admissibility and affordability. It then lists individual institutions based upon their affordability for typical college-bound youth in each state.

From among 1,054 private institutions it studied, it identified only 256 independent institutions as both admissible and affordable to median-income traditional students. It lists 78 independent institutions that were both admissible and affordable to median-income non-traditional students. The report finds that 28 states have no private four-year colleges that are affordable to low-income students and 21 more that have none for median-income independent students.

Major concerns are that the report misses a key opportunity to issue concrete policy recommendations for state governments that could make a difference in both access and affordability; it ignores crucial aspects of private higher education and could broaden public misperceptions about that sector; and its findings could be used by the regional and local press to portray all private colleges and universities as unaffordable.

The report fails to include degree completion as a crucial aspect of access.

• Independent institutions are already doing a great deal, not only through institutional student aid but also through a variety of academic and personal support programs, to ensure that students not only enter educational programs but can complete them. Indeed, average family income of students at private institutions is lower than at public institutions, and the gap is growing.
• The failure to consider degree completion as part of this research is a significant design flaw. Since the now-outdated 1970 Willingham study, which this report uses as a model, there has been growing understanding that progress toward degrees is a fundamental tenet of access and choice.
• Private colleges and universities enroll fewer than one-quarter of all undergraduates, but account for nearly one-third of the graduates; first-generation college students at private colleges are much more likely to complete a bachelor's degree within five years (63 percent) than at public institutions (46 percent); and attrition rates are higher at public institutions than at private institutions-at every level of institutional affluence and selectivity.
• The report overemphasizes factors that compare incomes and factors that contribute to entering college, but ignores the implications of the outcomes of attaining a degree from a private institution. The authors weighed data for how entry into postsecondary institutions on a state-by-state basis was accomplished, but stopped short of explaining the eventual outcomes of the students' attendance.
• Private institutions educate and return their students into the workforce in a substantially shorter time than do public institutions. Extra years of enrollment at a public institution with taxpayers' subsidy, and foregone income should be part of any calculation of costs.

The report fails to portray a broad range of state policy options, particularly those that might involve private colleges and universities.

• The report is culpable for not discussing the numerous new, aggressive state-supported financial aid programs that have substantially improved the economics of affording college. These new programs have altered the horizons in both private and public institutions for many students in numerous states.
• The report fails to draw connections between the growth of state non-need-based student aid funding and the private college role, nor does it discuss the policy implications for state governments that are concerned with improving access to higher education. Current approaches, such as new branch campuses of state systems of higher education and allowing existing, large institutions with dismal attrition rates to grow even larger-never cost-effective options-are now simply unaffordable.
• Many private institutions are more than ready to serve additional numbers of median- and low-income students, if state governments would either provide appropriate student financial aid or establish more of a level playing field through their tuition policies at public institutions. The report, however, shifts the burden of decision from states to private institutions.
• The report ignores such considerations as the advantage of filling underutilized capacity at private institutions at only marginal cost to the state, the extraordinary subsidy through private funds of students at these institutions, and the absence of any burden to the taxpayer.

Copyright ©1997-2008 Council of Independent Colleges. All rights reserved.