USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice in partnership with CASE CHANGE THE FOR A C I All for ndIvIduAl COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AINnd ColleCtIve leAdershIp A Report Informed and Inspired by the Los Angeles Conference Jan 26-28, 2011 January 26 January 28, 2011 TO Table of Contents 1 Introductory Letter from Jerome Lucido and Lloyd Thacker 2 Executive Summary 5 The Full Report 16 Appendix 1: The Case for Change Conference Program 17 Appendix 2: “Sorting to Extremes” by Sandy Baum and Michael S. McPherson 23 Appendix 3: Idea Harvest: Free Response from Conference Participants 27 Appendix 4: Participating Institutions 28 Appendix 5: Sponsors Introductory Letter from Jerome Lucido and Lloyd Thacker Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to present the written results of “The Case for Change in College Admissions. ” The enclosed documents describe the case as it was made and present the meeting’s success as a positive step forward. We are grateful to each of the 180 participants for their contributions, and we invite ongoing involvement and leadership from the broader educational community. Conceived as a venue for candid conversation about selective college admission, the quality and nature of participation revealed a compelling case for change. The willingness and ability of institutional leaders to examine the impact of the selective college admissions environment on institutional mission and on American society can be viewed as commendable, instructive, and inspirational. Within these pages you will find the meeting agenda, a list of the institutions represented, and a paper that presents the Case for Change as it emerged from the meeting’s keynoters, panelists, and participants. Also included is a recently published article from Change Magazine written by Sandy Baum and Mike McPherson that presents the thoughts they shared during our meeting. Finally, the candid remarks of participants generated during the idea harvesting session, moderated by Jeff Brenzel, are compiled together and serve to convey the special nature of this professional gathering to our many colleagues who were not able to attend. We solicit your help in crafting our next steps. Please consider the following questions and let us know: • Do you find the case for change compelling? • What activities would constitute productive next steps? • What would you be willing to do to help? We would like to thank the Lumina Foundation for Education, the College Board, and the Spencer Foundation for their generous support of the Case for Change meeting. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jerome A. Lucido Executive Director, USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice Professor of Research, USC Rossier School of Education [email protected] Lloyd Thacker Executive Director, Education Conservancy [email protected] 1 Executive Summary The Case for Change in College Admissions: A Call for Individual and Collective Leadership Does the selective college admissions system resemble one that educators would create? What must be done to reshape college admissions in the public interest? In January 2011 the University of Southern California Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice in conjunction with the Education Conservancy convened a national workshop – a unique experiment meant to consider “The Case for Change in College Admissions.” Its 180 participants included university and college admissions officers as well as faculty members and administrative leaders of selective private and public higher education institutions throughout the U.S. Also participating were members of both the federal and state higher education policy communities, higher education scholars, leaders of associations, and other stakeholders. This meeting, which was generously funded by the College Board, Lumina Foundation, and Spencer Foundation, was uniquely distinguished by the enthusiastic participation of attendees. At the same time, there was a widely shared sense of urgency that the level and nature of competition among attendees’ institutions was threatening education. A pervasive conviction among participants was that colleges and the public interest would be better served by reining in certain practices and engaging in cooperative behavior. Most emphatically expressed was a call for individual and collective leadership. This executive summary provides distillations of several prominent thoughts, ideas, and suggestions presented at the event. Readers are encouraged to digest the complete companion paper for further context and deeper understanding. The insights from this conference derive not just from empirical research, but also from years of professional experience. Altogether, this collection of arguments makes the case for change, recommends corrective actions, and challenges each member of the educational community to find a space for leadership and action in the public interest. At a time when higher education is critically important to ensuring the nation’s continued vitality and competitiveness in a global society, the U.S. has fallen from first to twelfth in the proportion of its citizens with a college degree. In the interconnected and competitive global society, an educated, adaptive workforce and citizenry is a necessity for any nation that seeks to retain its vitality and help address evolving societal challenges. As institutions held in public trust, colleges have an opportunity and an obligation to ensure their admissions policies and practices best serve our country’s educational well-being. Despite many sincere efforts by enrollment professionals to do just that, the presentations and exchanges of this meeting described an increasingly competitive, inwardly focused selective admissions system – one that has evolved to advance individual interests of colleges while falling short of serving the ideals traditionally associated with higher education. The values and behaviors this system signals as important, and its tendency to reward only a narrow band of students, undermine progress toward our nation’s educational attainment goals – and by extension, the social, economic, and civic vitality of our nation’s future. Deteriorating Values and Behavior All too often college admission has become a process that: • Provides incentives for institutions to elicit large numbers of applications from students only to turn them down in order to reinforce an image of selectivity; • Bestows unwarranted value to standardized tests as a supreme measure of academic competence, creating the impression that test scores are more important than a student’s actual learning or development, and giving rise to multi-billion dollar industries in testing, test-prep, and test coaching; • Reinforces a cynical attitude in students that gaining admission to a selective institution is an end in itself rather than the beginning of an educational journey – an attitude that gives rise to widespread cheating and gaming the system in high school while contributing to a weakened demand for effective teaching and a devaluation of learning in college; • Hinders colleges and universities from taking any action out of step with prevailing practice, regardless of its educational benefits, for the fear that such divergence would cause an individual institution to lose competitive standing with its peers. Impediments to Inclusivity In addition to imprudent values and behavior, current elements of the higher education system – and admission policies and practices among selective institutions in particular - hinder college participation and degree completion rates among underserved students, which is necessary to enhance the nation’s attainment rates. Examples include the following: • The practice of conferring significance to standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT beyond what they actually measure; • A substantial shift of student financial aid away from awards based on financial need toward merit-based awards – a practice that directs funding away from needy students toward those who are already economically and educationally advantaged; • Decreases in financial support for public universities and colleges, causing tuitions to rise and incentivizing the pursuit of wealthier students; • Increasing institutional competition for standing and prestige, often achieved at a price of neglecting external social costs and public interest obligations 2 Identifying the Space for Moral Action A question frequently raised by meeting participants was how selective higher education institutions could operate more effectively in the public interest. Every college and university works to fulfill its mission within constraints, yet those constraints nonetheless admit some space for moral action. The path to constructive change in the admissions process begins with a recognition that any university or college has some discretion to adopt admissions practices that accord more closely with its core educational values. A next step, then, is for an institution to work constructively within that space – while at the same time pursuing strategies to expand it. By asking certain questions, colleges can begin to assess how their admission practices comport with educationally desirable outcomes and how corrective action could better serve institutional mission and the public interest. Some questions concern the impact of the admissions process on high schools and, more particularly, on students applying to college. We should ask ourselves: • What is the demographic composition of our entering class in terms of ethnicity, educational and economic background? • What impact does our admission process have on the behavior of high schools in terms of the classes they offer and teaching methods they employ? Do our policies encourage genuine learning and self-improvement or cynicism toward education in high school and college? How do our admission practices affect students’ attitudes with regard to cheating or gaming the system? • How does our admission process affect the attitudes about education that admitted students develop? • What is the impact on non-admitted students and their parents? • What is the collective impact of the signals sent by the admissions system, and to what degree does our institution contribute to those signals? A further set of questions could cast in sharper relief the relationship between an institution’s educational mission and its competitive market considerations: • Are our admission practices in line with the educational values we espouse? Do we seek students who have already learned the most or those who could learn most from being here? • Are there students who could learn more from being here if the institution changed some of its behaviors – in its admissions practices and its programs of learning? • Do we attract primarily students who seek to prepare themselves for socially valuable work in such careers as education, social work, or nursing – or students who are mainly interested in highly remunerative careers that benefit their individual well-being in the highest degree? • To what extent can ethical considerations be regarded as secondary to the interest of financial stability and status? Corrective Opportunities In addition to asking these questions, institutional stakeholders, including presidents, trustees, faculty, and enrollment professionals should embrace the following opportunities to remake a more equitable and value-driven higher education community: 1. Measure What Matters • Align the use of standardized tests with their real (documented) value; • Help the public understand that selectivity in itself is not a proxy for the quality of education a student attains; • Develop measures in addition to persistence and graduation rates to express an institution’s impact on student learning; • Develop and apply measures of academic progress and success within the academic major as well as within general education curricula; • Find ways to express the contribution a higher education institution makes to a student’s learning, development, and maturity – including contributions that may not be easily quantifiable; • Develop and implement methods beyond the student course evaluation to gauge effective teaching; • Calibrate the number of students who enter different professions and careers following graduation. 2. Employ Practices that Contribute to the Public Interest • Curtail or eliminate the practice of awarding institutional merit aid to students at the expense of assisting students with financial need; • Take the risk of admitting more students who show educational promise outside the standard metrics used to gauge institutional selectivity; • Adopt local schools, helping their students understand the value of higher education and prepare for college-level study; • Consider the development of collaborative admission models to help alleviate some of the destructive anxiety students experience in applying to selective universities and colleges; • Commit to a judicious growth in the size of selective institutions to accommodate intensive demand; • Collaborate with a range of higher education institutions to convey the importance of students choosing a university or college that seems to be a good educational match; • Commit to a practice of not sending marketing materials to students who have a very small chance of being admitted to a selective institution; • Decline to participate in perception-based rankings of higher education institutions; • Work collectively to convey that not being admitted to a highly selective institution is not a condemning judgment about a student’s educational potential or value as a human being. 3 Leadership - Toward Individual and Collective Action The challenge to improve college admissions has created a prominent stage for educational leadership to emerge within selective colleges and universities throughout the United States. Institutional stakeholders who truly care about making a difference for education beyond their own institutions can distinguish themselves by serving as leaders on this stage. Creating a college admissions process that better exemplifies educational values and contributes more directly to the nation’s public interests will require courage, imagination, and commitment. Education is ready for a truly altered mindset in the leadership of higher education institutions. It will be necessary to hold in abeyance some of the spirit that conceives of success in college admissions as prevailing over the competition at any cost, and to ask whether the increasing drive to selectivity and mass appeal is exacerbating the inequalities that raised the educational stakes in the first place. Institutions and their leaders must come to view the admissions process from a perspective beyond the narcissistic glass of competitive rankings, and to see themselves as others see them – to recognize themselves as part of a larger system of institutions that make up the terrain of college choice and impact educational values and behaviors. Adopting this perspective requires that institutions ask different kinds of questions: Where do opportunities for deeper cultural interaction and understanding exist? What better attitudes toward the value of learning and achievement might take root, and what beneficial results might come about from admitting more students with promising credentials outside the standard metrics of selectivity? What students whom we admitted might have done better in another setting? How can college admissions better reflect and serve educational values? Given the enormity of the educational challenges confronting the nation, colleges and universities must come to regard themselves not as feudal fiefdoms but as integrally linked nodes in a network of shared educational purposes. Selective institutions must work together in adopting enrollment management practices that serve the public interest in more effective ways. Institutional stakeholders will need to rise to the challenge of identifying their individual and collective obligations. In taking these steps, higher education can make important strides in shaping the nation’s class for the decades ahead. 4 The Case for Change in College Admissions: A Call for Individual and Collective Leadership Nothing is more American than the ideal of individual advancement and success. The vision of starting anew, moving beyond the boundaries of social standing and economic circumstance, realizing one’s full potential in a land committed to freedom and opportunity has been an inspiration for generations of Americans. Particularly in the last 60 years, higher education in the United States has evolved in the spirit of supporting individual aspirations regardless of social or economic background. No other nation has aimed to create a higher education system that leads the world in academic strength and the creation of new knowledge, while at the same time making a college education available to anyone seeking to learn regardless of ability to pay. Closely linked with the ideal of freedom and individual pursuit is the fact of competition as a core element of American life and educational aspiration. The nation’s colleges and universities constitute a sorting system that fosters competition among students; it is a system that allows talent to identify itself and leadership to emerge. But in recent years competition in the college admissions process has become so intensified that it undermines many of the core values of learning and self-improvement that colleges and universities were founded to advance. While the negative impact of hyper-competition appears most vividly in the process of admission to the most selective universities and colleges, the effects can be seen through all sectors of higher education. The admissions process has come to resemble the metamorphosis of collegiate athletics from an integral component of undergraduate learning to a quasi-professional entity with a life of its own, essentially divorced from the educational mission. Too often in college admissions as in athletics the competition itself – the need to win and win big – has all but eclipsed any sense of educational value associated with the process – for institutions and students alike. In January 2011 the University of Southern California Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice in conjunction Ideally the college admissions process might be with the Education Conservancy convened a national conceived as one that encourages reflection, analysis, conference to consider the Case for Change in College and self-discovery in students, teaching them to Admissions. The conference was generously funded by the evaluate information and take responsibility for an College Board, Lumina Foundation, and Spencer Foundation. important life decision. Its 180 participants included university and college admissions officers as well as faculty members and administrative leaders of selective private and public higher education institutions throughout the U.S. Also participating were members of both the federal and state higher education policy communities, higher education scholars, leaders of associations, and other stakeholders. This essay recounts central themes from the conference and offers recommendations for shaping a higher education admissions process that better reflects the core values of education itself while contributing more effectively to the nation’s collective purposes through higher education. The presentations and exchanges of this meeting described a higher education admissions process that in many ways falls short in serving the needs of students, parents, and the nation’s public interest. Ideally the college admissions process might be conceived as one that encourages reflection, analysis, and self-discovery in students, teaching them to evaluate information and take responsibility for an important life decision. Such a process would help students identify and enroll in colleges most appropriate for their educational and personal development. In fact, however, the college admissions process in the U.S. can easily appear to be an operation in which educational values have been supplanted by competitive interests, motivated by market considerations, and detached from all moorings in educational mission. All too often college admission has become a process that: • Distorts students’ relationships with learning, causing them to regard the high school years as an Olympic training season demanding ever- greater feats of accomplishment in order to qualify for admission to a selective university or college; • Provides incentives for institutions to elicit large numbers of applications from students only to turn them down in order to reinforce an image of selectivity; • Bestows unwarranted value to standardized tests as a supreme measure of academic competence, creating the impression that test scores are more important than a student’s actual learning or development, and giving rise to multi-billion dollar industries in testing, test-prep, and test coaching; • Diverts funds from need-based to merit-based financial aid, effectively excluding substantial numbers of lower-income students from college participation; • Reinforces a cynical attitude in students that gaining admission to a selective institution is an end in itself rather than the beginning of an educational journey – an attitude that gives rise to widespread cheating and gaming the system in high school while contributing to a weakened demand for effective teaching and a devaluation of learning in college; • Signals that the reason for gaining entry to a selective institution is to gain advantage for entry into a lucrative profession, in effect discouraging students from fields of study that prepare for lower-paying careers of service to society; • Feeds a sense of inflated self-esteem and superiority in many students who succeed in gaining admission to highly selective institutions – an attitude that hinders the capacity for empathy and widens the separation between the most and least privileged in society; • Hinders colleges and universities from taking any action out of step with prevailing practice, from the fear that such divergence would cause an institution to lose competitive standing with its peers; 5 • Forces state flagship universities into the admissions arms race in search of wealthier students, as state governments reduce expenditures for higher education, thereby weakening public institutions’ ability to offer admission to all qualified residents of a state. A Tale Twice Told Concern about the detrimental effects of the college admissions process is certainly not a new phenomenon. The negative impact on students seeking admission to the nation’s selective institutions has been a subject of conversation for more than two decades. From the mid-1980s to the present, critics have observed how the drive to gain admission to a selective university or college distorts the middle and high school years as a season of learning and discovery. Then as now, observers have noted how the process complicates and unhinges friendships as peers compete to be among the limited number of those who gain admission to a highly selective institution. The multi-billion dollar testing, test-prep, test counseling, and ranking industries reinforce a delusion that equates personal success with admission to one particular institution – and that causes a student to interpret a rejection from that pinnacle of all hopes as a catastrophic life failure. The process comes to seem arbitrary and deterministic as certain attributes such as the number of Advanced Placement (AP) credits assume an importance out of proportion to their actual contribution to the educational result, much as peacock’s feathers or a moose’s antlers get rewarded in the mating process despite their dubious functional utility. A Changing National and Global Circumstance What has changed though these years, however, is the educational attainment of the U.S. population relative to other nations. At a time when higher education is critically important to ensuring the nation’s continued vitality and competitiveness in a global society, the U.S. has fallen from first to twelfth in the proportion of its citizens with a college degree. President Obama has called for the U.S. to educate an additional 8 million young people beyond the 3 million who are projected to earn college degrees by 2020; in like measure, the Lumina Foundation has announced a goal of having 60% of the U.S. population attain high-quality postsecondary degrees by 2025. In the interconnected and competitive global society, an educated, adaptive workforce and citizenry is a necessity for any nation that seeks to retain its vitality and help address evolving societal challenges. The difficulty of reaching such national goals for education is accentuated by the economic recession which has left many states unable to fund their public universities and colleges at a level that sustains educational opportunity for all state residents seeking higher education. One of the greatest challenges now confronting the nation is to foster greater educational participation and degree attainment among those whom colleges and universities have traditionally served less well: lower-income students, first-generation students, and members of under- represented minorities. Through the past three decades the attainment gap between higher- and lower-income students has not changed. Impediments to Inclusivity In fact the current system of higher education admissions, particularly among highly selective universities and colleges, has the effect of discouraging students of lower income, including underrepresented minorities, from applying to college. Six elements of the higher education system – and its admission process in particular – work against the nation’s progress in increasing college participation and degree completion rates among lower-income students: • The practice of conferring significance to standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT beyond what they actually measure; • A substantial shift of student financial aid away from awards based on financial need toward merit-based awards – a practice that directs funding away from needy students toward those who are already economically and educationally advantaged; • The systemic under-funding of education for students at the lowest end of the economic spectrum, not just in K-12 schooling but in higher education as well; • The inability of many states to provide financial support for their public universities and colleges in the same degree as before, causing tuitions to rise as higher education comes increasingly to be regarded as a private rather than a public good; • The disinclination of many traditional universities and colleges to reach out to students of lower income for whom a college education could yield a life transformation; • The increasing institutional competition for standing and prestige, often achieved at a price of neglecting external social costs and public interest obligations. Standardized tests such as the SAT and ACT have been heavily used in college admissions to provide an additional gauge of academic promise beyond high school grades. Each year some three million high school graduates take the SAT and ACT exams – in many cases more than once. The prospect of taking one of these tests and having scores sent to a desired set of institutions generates anxiety in students and their parents, intensified by the misplaced emphasis on this measure in the college rankings and in the promotional literature of colleges and universities themselves. Standardized tests have become a basis not just for university and college bragging rights, but also for rating high schools and determining the value of real estate. 6 The emphasis on the score itself creates a distorted image of the application process – one that undermines the value of college choice itself as a process of learning and growth in students. The preoccupation with standardized test scores in the rankings and media causes this measure to take on a significance greatly exceeding their presumptive value as an auxiliary to high school grades in indicating a student’s likelihood of succeeding in college. It is interesting to note that in a recent set of interviews the Education Conservancy conducted with high school students in the college admissions process, discontent with standardized tests was the feeling students most often volunteered without any prompting from the interview questions. These interviews conveyed the depth of student resentment over pressures to take and retake ACT or SAT, as if scoring well on the test was itself a fundamental measure of self-worth. Students who described themselves as principled and conscientious in their approach to study in school expressed the cynicism that testing evoked; the hypersignificance ascribed to testing caused many to conclude that a high test score was the ultimate goal to be achieved by any means, including cheating. Using SAT or ACT scores as a determining factor in the admissions process allows a selective institution to claim that it attracts the best and brightest while ensuring that it enrolls a substantial share of students from the highest income categories. Whether intended or not, all too often the effect of standardized tests in admissions decisions is to solidify social and economic disparities among different segments of the population, and to recast the conception of academic merit in terms of family income. Another indicator of sorting by income is the increased practice of awarding financial aid to students without regard for actual Another indicator of sorting by income is the increased financial need, a practice that results in increased subsidies to practice of awarding financial aid to students without those who can afford college and a reduction of aid to the needy. A 2008 report of the Institute for College Access and Success, regard for actual financial need, a practice that results entitled “Time to Reexamine Institutional Cooperation on in increased subsidies to those who can afford college Financial Aid,” cites a College Board survey of 946 universities and a reduction of aid to the needy. and colleges in 2005-6, which found that $3.3 billion in institutional aid awarded was non-need based while calculated unmet need of admitted students was $2.4 billion. On the one hand, there are good arguments for institutions to make limited and judicious use of merit aid to attract some students who could add to the vitality of an incoming class while also contributing a significant share of their tuition costs from family sources. On the basis of this sample of institutions, however, need-blind awards now constitute approximately one-third of grant aid that four-year institutions provide to college students. This practice has grown to the point of significantly reducing the funds available to qualified students from lower income households who could benefit from a college education. Furthermore, providing subsidies to those who can afford to pay for college creates a huge financial burden on institutions which adds to the cost of higher education as a whole. A third indicator of disparity in the sorting process can be seen in the amount of funds that institutions at different points of the spectrum spend to educate students. It is natural that students of different interests, preparation, and motivation should sort themselves into different types of institutions. It hould not be surprising that the higher a student’s family income, the more likely he or she is to attend a private not- for-profit university or college. The average yearly expenditures per student among higher education institutions range from about $5,000 at community colleges to some $19,500 for private research universities. Considering the size of this spending gap, however, one could reasonably ask: What is the marginal productivity of the last dollar spent in each type of institution? How could a reallocation of those dollars result in more effective progress in meeting the nation’s public purposes through higher education? The combination of testing, rankings, financial aid availability, peer anxiety and competition, and the impact of rejection on those who had aimed high can easily create a foreboding impression of college admission and attendance, particularly to students from the lower end of the income spectrum. One result is a tendency of lower-income students, including minorities and first-generation college attenders, to “under- match” by choosing a college or university from a less competitive category than their academic qualifications would support. As William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson point out in Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities, in some cases the combination of institutional policies and implied social messages cause promising students from lower-income groups to pass over an institution for which they are academically qualified in favor of one that offers a less intimidating, more welcoming environment that is more familiar in terms of the social and economic backgrounds of other students. In choosing not to apply for admission to a college or university that more nearly matches their academic qualifications, however, lower-income students opt for an institution in which they are less likely to persist to graduation. The attrition rate of students who under-match in their choice of an institution is higher than that of students who choose an institution commensurate with their academic qualifications. The under-funding of public higher education is another factor in an educational sorting process that hinders the nation’s ability to meet its goal 7 of a more highly educated population. Public universities and colleges, which have depended on state support as a major revenue source, have faced repeated cuts as virtually every state struggles to reconcile its balance sheet in a period of deep and lingering recession. A fundamental promise of public higher education has been to open doors of opportunity to all state residents who seek to advance themselves through higher education regardless of income. The effect of successive budget cuts, however, has been to curtail that promise in state after state. Within the past two years particularly, state systems and individual flagship universities have found themselves crossing a sad threshold in which revenue collected from student tuition exceeds the state’s total financial contribution toward students’ education. The example of one state’s flagship university is instructive: through the 1990s the state’s per-student support amounted to $14,000; today that number is $5,000 in constant dollars. Tuition for in-state residents during this time has risen from $3,000 to $11,000. Many are concerned that the shifting ratio of state appropriation to tuition has contributed to a fundamental reconception of higher education: there is less of a shared conviction in American society today that higher education is a public good that benefits society and warrants public support. In its place has emerged an understanding of higher education as a private good that confers individual advantage to those who are willing and able to pay. One result of this changing scenario has been to push state flagship universities into the arms race for higher-income students. The strategy for many public institutions has been to attract more out-of-state and international students who pay higher tuition, even at the expense of admitting qualified students from within the state. Students who have begun their studies at a community college may well find that their chances of transferring to a public university in their own state are slimmer than they were given to understand in first enrolling. As states lose the ability to be good financial stewards of their public universities and colleges, state residents of lower income in particular may find a Many capable students who now choose curtailment of opportunity in the public college or university system. proprietary institutions could enroll and thrive in traditional not-for-profit higher education This development is particularly troubling when considered in the institutions, including the most selective context of the nation’s changing demographics. Higher education’s entering class in ten years will be more diverse than today’s in terms universities and colleges, often at lower cost. of its social, economic, and racial composition. A larger proportion of the entering class will consist of lower-income and minority students that traditional higher education institutions have not served particularly well in the past. A growing share of the nation’s young people will lack the educational advantages from their K-12 schooling that help them recognize the benefits of higher education or understand the need to prepare for college through the middle and high school years. As the basic requirements for entry and advancement in the workforce increasingly come to include a college degree, the need to educate more students from less advantaged populations has become a national imperative. The tendency of many traditional institutions of higher education, however, has been to think first of their revenue-generating prospects, and to assign lower priority to this changing demographic profile from a conviction that less advantaged students are “not our market.” Increasingly, the institutions that do consider economically and educationally disadvantaged students as part of their market are those in the for-profit sector. Through the past decade the most dramatic growth in higher education has occurred in proprietary institutions, which now account for 12% of all higher education enrollments. This sector has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism not just for its low completion rates, but also for questionable recruitment practices and an excessive reliance on the federal financial aid system. At the same time, for-profit institutions have appealed to many students because of their more accommodating class schedules, their ability to offer a standardized curriculum in a variety of locations, and their successful use of the internet as well as traditional classroom instruction in teaching and learning. For-profits are very much a part of the higher education landscape in the twenty-first century; a growing number of proprietary institutions have sought and attained regional accreditation in the U.S., and with the adoption of professional standards and practices commensurate with not-for-profit institutions, proprietary colleges and universities are poised to gain greater acceptance throughout the industry. If for-profit institutions continue to grow their enrollments of lower-income students at the rate they have done in the past, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they will account for 20% of higher education by 2020. Many capable students who now choose proprietary institutions could enroll and thrive in traditional not-for-profit higher education institutions, including the most selective universities and colleges, often at lower cost. Yet the disinclination of traditional universities and colleges to cultivate more capable students from economically and educationally disadvantaged populations has contributed to a sense of bifurcation in the nation’s higher education system. Traditional not-forprofit institutions, including the most selective universities and colleges, must exhibit the will to engage more intentionally in transformative education for underserved populations – among other things by devising better means of assessing students’ learning potential and reaching out more effectively to students of promise from disadvantaged backgrounds. A Space for Moral Action In a number of ways, the college admissions process is one that sorts students into institutions by income and social privilege; as such, it is a system that calcifies disparities between members of different economic and social status. The educational sorting process largely assigns students from the most advantaged backgrounds to selective private institutions that expend the greatest amounts on instruction, while 8