Literary Deficiencies Identified

Share this article

Speaking at a panel on “Why Teach Literature Anyway?,” Professor Walter Benn Michaels argued that teaching social justice to rich students was hypocritical in the face of ongoing economic disparities between college students and the poorer populations who, he argues, can’t get access to these schools.

The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) professor argued at the 2008 Modern Language Association (MLA) Convention that “the gap between the rich and poor” has “become much greater” over the last 30 years.

According to Heritage Foundation scholars Robert Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., the U.S. Census magnifies perceived income inequality in the U.S. by placing a larger section of the population in the top quintile (24.3% in 1997) as opposed to the bottom quintile (14.8% in 1997).

Referencing a 2006 Education Trust (ET) study, Michaels said that “It’s not for nothing that the recent Education Trust report on access to public flagship universities was called ‘Engines of Inequality.’”

Michaels argued that

“So it’s not just that we’re committed to edification, it’s that we’re committed to the edification of rich kids and our research agenda has proven up to the challenge; we teach the rich kid the importance of social justice and we teach them a model of social justice that ignores the central and growing injustice of our era: the increase in economic inequality that has made the rich kids rich.”

The ET report concludes that “Rated less for what they accomplish with the students they let in than by how many students they keep out, many of these flagship institutions have become more and more enclaves for the most privileged of their state’s young people.”

For example, they cite that between 1993 and 2003 the number of students from households earning over $100,000 annually increased 12%, while students coming from families earning under $60,000 each year decreased between four and five percent during this time period.

The ET authors repeatedly emphasized in “Engines of Inequality” that public flagship schools aren’t enrolling their “fair share” of their respective state’s minorities and poor. For example, they write that “Compared with other postsecondary institutions, the flagships’ combined low-income access ratio of .63 (calculated by dividing the 22 percent of Pell recipients enrolled at flagships by the 35 percent of Pell recipients enrolled at all colleges and universities) suggests that they are serving approximately one third less than what might be considered fair-share of all low-income college students.”

“But, as we show later in this report, there turn out to be far more top-achieving, low-income students who could succeed in these institutions than ever get a chance,” argue the ET authors.

“Where are those talented low-income students instead? Mostly either not in college at all, or in less selective schools to which these top achieving students could have been admitted if their achievement was only mediocre.”

Actually, whether or not flagship universities are courting fewer low-income students means little to whether these students make it into college. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), the number of high school graduates immediately entering college increased from 49.2% to 68.6% between 1972 and 2005.

While high school graduates from low-income families do lag behind their rich counterparts in college attendance (53.5 percent versus 81.2 percent in 2005), college attendance is steadily increasing at all income levels. And the gap between these two demographics has decreased since 1972, from a 37.7% disparity to a 27.7% disparity.

Between 1972 and 2005, according to NCES:

– low income high school graduates increased attendance from 26.1 percent to 53.5 percent (+105%).
– middle income high school graduates increased attendance from 45.2 percent to 65.1 percent (+44%).
– high income high school graduates increased attendance from 63.8 percent to 81.2 percent (+27%).

“To meet remaining costs after grant aid, low-income students and their families must come up—from family contributions, work and loans—with amounts the equivalent of 80 percent of their annual incomes,” the ET authors argue. “For those at the other end of the spectrum, families making more than $100,000 per year, the amount remaining constitutes a more reasonable 12 percent of their yearly incomes.”

This certainly doesn’t hold for the University of California at Berkeley, which ET gives an “A” on low-income access. (UC Berkeley earns a “C” overall, according to ET).

Here, a single mother with two children who earns $20,000 annually and has no underlying assets has an expected family contribution of $0 when attending UC Berkeley. According to the college’s financial aid estimator, this family would receive $17,886 – $18,386 in grants and scholarships, leaving $7,700 to $8,200 in net costs to be made up through student loans and a student work study. The “Estimated amount that the family may choose to borrow or contribute from savings and/or current earnings” is $0 to $1,000.

However, a two-parent household with one child earning $100,000 would receive no grants or scholarships from UC Berkeley; instead, they would be liable for the full $26,586 each year, with student loans of only $7,143 to $7,643. The remaining $18,943 to $19,443 in annual costs must be made up by either 1) out-of-pocket spending or 2) private, unsubsidized loans.

UC Berkeley scholarships are often based on financial need, for which this “wealthy” family would not qualify. For example, The Achievement Award Program providing $6,000 per year does not admit students from families earning over $86,000—leaving this “high income family” virtually no university-based scholarships to help compensate for the high tuition cost.

After California state taxes, federal taxes, and payroll taxes are removed from the $100,000 household’s wages, one might find the ensuing cost of tuition after school-provided loans closer to 20% or even a quarter of the family’s earnings, not “a more reasonable 12 percent of their yearly incomes.” According to the FinAid.org EFC estimator, a married couple with one child earning $100,000 and no assets would have a federally-calculated EFC of $24,089, assuming $63,056 in “adjusted available income.” By this ratio, the family is expected to contribute about 38% of their income to college expenses.

Bethany Stotts is a staff writer at Accuracy in Academia.