Evan Goldstein of the Chronicle of Higher Education writes:

The Chronicle’s recent financial aid story stems from an analysis we conducted of federal Pell Grant data for the 2004-5 academic year that shows that just 14 percent, on average, of the undergraduates at the country’s 59 richest private colleges were Pell Grant recipients. On the flagship campuses of the 31 best-endowed public universities, they made up 20 percent. That’s
compared with nearly one-third of students at all four-year public and private colleges.

It seems that colleges with the most money do a poor job serving students with the least.

Some of the questions raised by these findings:

In the last few years, some two dozen top public and private colleges have announced efforts to expand financial aid, but is that enough? How can colleges identify and recruit high-achieving applicants from low-income families — particularly public universities with mandates to
draw substantial numbers of students from within the state? How can they help needy students acclimate to a campus culture that may be very different from what the students are used to?

And what is at stake in those programs? Does it matter if impoverished students do not attend expensive colleges?

You can read the two pieces here

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i36/36a00101.htm

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i36/36a01601.htm

In addition, The Chronicle will be hosting an online discussion on Wednesday, May 10, at noon Eastern Time about these issues with special guest Anthony W. Marx of Amherst College. The colloquy is free and open to the public and questions can be submitted in advance. For all
relevant information please visit
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2006/05/rich/chat.php3.

If you have any means of spreading word of this chat please feel free to do so.

Jon Boeckenstedt, Associate Vice President of Enrollment Management at DePaul University in Chicago, recently posted this on the listserv of NACAC (the National Association for College Admission Counseling).

“I wonder if it isn’t time to bring up the subject of a Clearinghouse for undergraduate admission again. It seems that advances in information technologies make it more likely than not; and fearing that some company will jump in the fray and design bad products or services, here is how it might work:

* Student fills out one application at the start of the senior year. It’s stored online.
* HS sends electronic copies of transcripts, recommendations, etc. to the clearing house. Portfolios for art or music or theatre are done the old-fashioned way, I’m guessing.
* Test scores could either be centralized or done the way they are now
* We move the financial aid system to a prior/prior year approach, so that aid applications can be completed over the summer between the junior and senior year, and available to colleges only at the point they’ve admitted the student, to allow real aid offers to go with early admits, even before January 1.

* Students then decide to release information to the colleges they want, perhaps in some preference order, 1-5
* Colleges admit in cycles, perhaps 4 or 5 per year (October, December, February, April, July, e.g). The decisions are admit or deny, but a student is free to re-apply in later cycles if denied in an earlier one
* For cycle 1, colleges only see the applications for students who have listed them at #1; in subsequent cycles, only the apps of those who have listed them at the current cycle or higher (for instance, in cycle 3, only the 1, 2 and 3’s who have not yet decided)
* Colleges know where we stand in the student’s choice set, which allows us to use the old-fashioned concept of ED (in which high levels of interest are given “some” consideration in a decision) appropriately, without guessing.
* Students (and everyone else) can obtain real, online information about students with their profiles (gpa, hs, program applied to, ethnicity, activities, athletics, legacy status) to allow them to make better decisions about their chances at any school. We’d also eliminate the
application inflation of the so-called “fast apps” and get real numbers from the colleges
* In the late cycles, colleges whose class is not full (or who need just a left-handed, red-headed fiddle player from Albuquerque) could search the databases for students who have not yet been admitted, and send them information.
* The Clearinghouse accepts only one deposit; if a student sends a second, the first is nullified and the rejected college notified.
* Year-end reports are available to anyone who wants them, to do with as they see fit.

There are dozens of reasons why this wouldn’t work, and probably some why it’s not a great idea, but the thing I like about it is that everyone gives up something to get something better back. If College participation were optional, those who choose not to participate would
be doing so only at their own expense and potential peril.”

Any thoughts? How does that sound to you?