Poor Economy Leads Colleges to Make Poor Decisions

The struggling quality of the U.S. economy is no secret matter. Over the past few years, it has been a largely debated topic in politics as well as among parents, and education leaders. However, the solution that several colleges have admitted to implementing in order to combat this issue is not the best one for the U.S. In a Sept. 21 article entitled "The Dumbing of America: Effects of the Economy on American Post Secondary Education Practices" published by Clifford S. Mintz, he discusses that as a means of avoiding economic uncertainty, U.S. universities and colleges are admitting students who can afford to attend their schools, despite their being less-qualified than those who aren't as well off financially.

According to Mintz, "tough economic times are forcing more students to enroll at community colleges because they can no longer afford the staggeringly-high tuition costs at most American four year public and private colleges and universities." This statement puts emphasis on the idea that quality of education is dependent upon financial status. Being a college student myself, I find the idea of four-year universities and colleges much more appealing than community colleges in terms of how it will look on my resume and how it will influence my job search after college. In his article, Mintz states that “rather than admit deserving academically-qualified and competitive students who may need financial aid to attend their institutions, admission officers will sometimes admit less academically qualified students to offset rising financial costs.” He refers to an article in the New York Times (“Universities Seeking Out Students of Means.” ) that highlights this practice.

Mintz provided the following statistic from that article to support his claim: “22 percent of the admissions officials at four-year institutions said the financial downturn had led them to pay more attention in their decision to applicants’ ability to pay.” Finally, “10 percent of the admissions directors at four-year colleges — and almost 20 percent at private liberal-arts schools — said that the full-pay students they were admitting, on average, had lower grades and test scores than other admitted applicants.”

By admitting students who can afford to attend universities and colleges as the majority, that will significantly impact minority groups, such as African American and Hispanic youths, due to the fact that they are usually less financially stable and require assistance in paying for their college education. This practice hinders them which means that they won’t be receiving the same quality of education as richer and mostly Caucasian students. In order to combat this I would suggest the use of Affirmative Action programs our textbook defines these as “A program designed to make up for past discrimination by giving special assistance to members of the groups that were discriminated against” (Social Problems, 10th ed. - Coleman & Kerbo 67). The textbook also states that these programs have come under fire in past years because some don’t view the practice as fair. However, admitting student based on their wealth is also not fair because some deserve it much more than others.

Mintz argues that this practice implies that “generating revenue has replaced the educational and academic mission that all of these institutions were founded upon.” When I read that statement, I couldn’t help but think of the Edison Company. Edison was attempting to run public primary and secondary schools for profit, but the end result was negative, in that it didn’t work. Money does not make someone smarter; it just makes it easier for them to get what they want. But what does that mean for the people who work hard for what they want? Shouldn’t they take priority? I think so!