The University of Oregon and the nation’s other flagship state universities have received low marks in a report stating that they give aid to fewer low-income and minority students than in the past. Meanwhile, the same institutions have increased aid given to more privileged students.
The report, titled “Engines of Inequity,” faults flagship schools, states’ top public universities, for becoming “enclaves for the most privileged” and using resources to recruit top students at the expense of providing opportunities for poor and minority students. The Education Trust, a national organization that released the report last week, focuses on closing the achievement and access gap.
The study contends that in 2003, the 50 institutions collectively spent $86 million more on students whose families earn $100,000 or more than they spent on students whose families earn $20,000 or less.
According to the report in 1995, students whose families earned $100,000 or more were given $50 million in scholarships, but by 2003, that figure had dramatically increased to $257 million. During the same period, the amount of scholarship money given to students whose families earned less than $20,000 decreased by $25 million, the report states.
The report also contends that universities are giving a growing amount to students based on their merit rather than basing the awards on financial need.
“They aren’t spending that money on the low-income, the low-income students for whom such aid is absolutely essential if they are to attend college, but on the high-income students who will help increase their rankings in college guides,” the report states.
The University of Oregon earned a failing grade in minority access and a D in low-income access. Nationally, universities were mostly given D’s or F’s for “access,” based on affordability and the availability of scholarships.
Although the University of Oregon’s has regressed in both of these areas, “progress in areas of access and success,” or an institution’s ability to successfully graduate the minority and economically disadvantaged students, was positive.
Oregon also shrunk the gap between the ratio of underrepresented college graduates and the percentage of minority and low-income students who graduate from high school from 1990 to 2005.
Linda Brady, the University’s senior vice president and provost, was unavailable for comment but told The Oregonian that the report’s data was dated and didn’t reflect the University’s recent efforts to increase diversity.
Last year, she said, the University raised the portion of its scholarship money devoted to needy students from 57 percent to 65 percent, according to The Oregonian’s article on the topic.
Brady also cited the $300,000 first-year investment in the Dean’s Access Award program, which targets academically accomplished students who need financial assistance to attend college. She also contended that the report did not account for transfer students from community colleges, where many poor and minority students first enroll before coming to the University.
The Education Trust’s report only covered the 50 flagship state universities.
Jael Anker-Lagos, ASUO Multicultural Center (MCC) co-director, said that Brady’s comments reflected an administrative view that was out-of-touch with what students and faculty were actually experiencing on campus and that the University’s priorities are apparent through its actions.
She noted that the University had done a poor job creating an environment that is welcoming to minority students; the Office of Multicultural Academic Support and the MCC programs are underfunded, and Ethnic Studies is only a program instead of a department.
“There’s (few) places a student can turn to,” she said.
In addition, minority faculty do not remain at the University for long, she noted.
“There’s a revolving door,” she said. “The administration claims they’re doing a very good job, but they’re doing a horrible job retaining faculty of color … it’s not just the money; it’s the community,” she said.
A lack of adequate funding is often cited, but it is mostly is a lack of priorities, Anker-Lagos said.
“I like to consider myself an optimist, but right now the future’s not looking so good,” she said.
ASUO President Jared Axelrod also said that it was premature to declare the study’s findings to be outdated because the results of newer programs have yet to be determined.
“It’s too early to tell,” he said.
Axelrod said the report’s findings represented a wake-up call for the University, which has struggled in recent years to offset high tuition costs for low-income students.
“We’re not doing a good job and we need to do better,” he said. “It shows that we’re not doing so well, but the only place to go is up.”
Axelrod said that student leaders have continued to lobby for legislative support for higher education and a larger Oregon Opportunity Grant, a fund that aims to offset higher education costs.
“The Oregon Opportunity Grant only covers 11 percent of costs, so we definitely need an increase,” he said. “Right now it only covers the neediest of needy students.”
Contact the news editor at [email protected]