Balance (1965 - 1990)
Dollars and Access
America's brave new world began in the late 1940s believing it could greatly expand access [to higher education] without putting merit at risk or redefining merit. In the 1960s and early 1970s public policy and institutions undertook more direct efforts to enhance educational access and to fortify it with academic success, while simultaneously confronting complaints that the weight of equity had unbalanced the scale to the detriment of merit. The response in the 1980s and 1990s was predominantly: Everyone should have the opportunity to attend college ... but going to college and succeeding there should be the result of individual choice and negotiations between the institution and the individual.
Marvin Lazerson
"The College Board and American Educational History"
Access to higher education was at the heart of the merit and equity dilemma. Too often, access was limited, not because of lack of talent or ability but because of financial, racial, and educational barriers. The societal emphasis on expanding access to those historically underrepresented in higher education -- mainly minorities and those with lower incomes -- yielded programs and legal precedents encouraging college attendance for these groups. However, overall gains in minority and low-income participation in higher education were nominal.
A number of things contributed to expanding access. There was growing concern about minorities' equal access to higher education and equal educational opportunities generally. Government mandates forced institutions to address concerns over equal access of minorities and women to higher education. Higher education attempted to provide this access through changed admissions policies and through new institutional forms.
Between 1965 and the mid-1970s, a tenuous balance between merit (rewarding talent and ability) and equity (expanding equal opportunity) was created in higher education. This balance collapsed in the 1980s as society began to view higher education as a private, individual good rather than a public good. Whether contributing to this shift in view or a reflection of it, were changes in higher education finance.
Over the course of the 25 years until 1990, college tuition costs skyrocketed, and financial aid, either in the form of grants or student loans, became increasingly necessary to fund the rising cost of higher education. Yet, the burden of paying for college costs shifted from grants through institutions and government aid to loans paid by students and families.
These changes in higher education finance were critical to minority participation and participation generally. This shift from government aid through grants to student loans contributed greatly toward declining access and stratification. Minorities and those from lower-income brackets were more likely to attend less costly two-year institutions than the more expense, yet more prestigious four-year research universities.
The share of financial aid provided students through grants and loans has shifted dramatically from 1970 to 1983. Whereas grants provided 80% and loans provided 16.9 % of the share of aid to students in 1975, grants only provided 48% in 1983 and loans provided 48%.
The College Board believed that it was caught in the cross-currents of the merit and equity debate in college admissions. The Board recognized that numerous, practical questions surrounded this debate.
- Should there be diversity or homogeneity in higher education?
- Was selective admission or open admission the better policy?
- Should admission be awarded according to merit or as a means to create proportional representation of minorities? Or should enrollment be totally open, allowing access to all applicants?
These questions underlay all the discussions and initiatives that the College Board pursued in relation to expanding access to higher education.
Even though caught in a cross-current, the College Board did value expanding access and educational equity over more restrictive views of higher education admissions. The Board believed that with proper guidance and instruction, talented disadvantaged students could succeed in higher education.
By the 1980s, officials at the College Board recognized that demographic and economic changes necessitated that minority and low-income youth be encouraged to develop their latent talent and enroll in higher education institutions. In this way, the College Board believed that efforts to assist disadvantaged youth in participating in higher education was both morally just (equitable) and in the best interests of society.
