Hearn examines equity in access to higher education. In particular, he examines the differences by socioeconomic status in the effects of financial and other policies on access to postsecondary education in terms of equity and access. He asserts that both the meaning of ‘access’ and the appropriate equity-enhancing policies to pursue it will have to be reconsidered in light of a series of changes in the form of new kinds of students, enrollments, providers, faculty, markets, and outcomes.

 

This book is divided into two parts: the first considers where American higher education is and has been with respect to equity and excellence; the second considers where American higher education is headed by examining the major policy issues that present themselves to both educational institutions and policy makers at the state and federal levels. While the authors find that American higher education does well when evaluated on the grounds of ‘excellence’, they are less optimistic about success regarding society’s equity objective. Bowen, Kurzweil and Tobin do not advocate for systemic reform but do see value in steady infusions of dollars and talent for continued success at the undergraduate and professional levels.

Lyall and Sell assert that market forces are eroding the traditional partnership between states and public universities and explain how the search for new revenue sources is refocusing the basic goals of public universities. They begin with a discussion of recent trends in American public universities and conclude with recommendations on how to 'save' higher education.

Cox describes the ascent of the Apollo Group’s University of Phoenix, and then addresses the emergence of the for-profit ethos in traditional academic institutions. Cox believes that this profit-orientation will unwittingly fail students in both a moral and fiduciary sense. Cox foresees American higher education being split in two – with expensive, elite private schools (and a handful of ‘public ivies’) on one hand and resource-scarce public institutions on the other side. These resource-scarce schools will be forced to compete against the elite institutions and will either destroy themselves in the process or will adopt for-profit tactics. Cox advocates for changes to higher education policy prioritizing the cultivation of well-rounding, thoughtful citizens in universities rather than short-term financial gain.

Brodkey takes aim at curricula disciplining all children, regardless of class, according to some widely-received middle-class definition of learning and teaching. Brodkey points out that such policies implicitly or explicitly justify punishing students, parents, teachers, and/or administrators who challenge its exclusive authority by threatening them and/or children with expulsion from the middle class.

Based on a report Duster conducted for the University of California, Berkeley chancellor on multiculturalism on campus, Duster identifies five myths being sold to students by multiculturalism’s critics: 1) that multiculturalism is tearing the campus apart; 2) that diversity means dumber; 3) that getting rid of affirmative action and other special admissions programs would improve the university; 4) that a meritocracy basing admissions on standardized tests and grade points is the way to go; and 5) that radical faculty are setting the campus political agenda.

This book is a collection of writings produced while Brodhead was Dean of Yale College. The first section focuses how undergraduates can get the most from their undergraduate education. Later sections focus on familiar challenges of the modern university – ranging from free speech to diversity issues to questions of constructing a coherent curriculum.

Guinier explores the case of Grutter versus Bollinger which affirms the use of race in admissions decisions at the University of Michigan Law School. Guinier explores the democratic and public missions of higher education, and the criteria that universities use to populate their classrooms. Guinier also discusses two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in detail: 1) Grutter versus Bollinger, and 2) Gratz versus Bollinger.

The current debate over affirmative action continues the tradition of focusing on quantifiable measurements and merit as the criteria for the distribution of benefits, i.e., university admission seats. This paper joins the current discourse on affirmative action by suggesting that we move beyond the present polarized debate by illuminating how the concepts of merit and fairness might be more meaningfully explored in a democratic society. Introducing what Guinier tentatively calls a process of confirmative action, she urges the establishment of policies linking all admission practices to the broad purposes and public character of higher education in a multiracial democracy.

Guinier comments on an article addressing the careers of minority graduates in the University of Michigan Law School (Lempert, Chambers, and Adams). Guinier believes that this study confirms the 'opportunities' of affirmative action. She cites benefits for admitted students, white students, the public at large, and the legal profession.

Using data covering the last half of the twentieth century, Bound and Turner find strong evidence that large college cohorts within the United States have relatively low undergraduate degree attainment, reflecting less than perfect elasticity of supply in the higher education market. That large cohorts receive lower public subsidies per student in higher education explains this result, indicating that resources have large effects on degree production. The results suggest that reduced resources per student following from rising cohort size and lower state expenditures are likely to have significant negative effects on the supply of colleged-educated workers entering the labor market.