Economic diversity: a goal deferred

We certainly don’t need the influx of prospective students roaming around campus to remind us that the college admissions process has sprung into the hearts and minds of countless high school seniors across the country. For most of us, the torturous period is so indelibly etched into our memories that we can’t help but feel some schadenfreude from observing overzealous cut-throats placed into crowded tour groups, or from walking down the steps of Low Library, Homer in hand, “subtly” conveying to them that, yes, we are indeed students here.

I expect, or at least hope, that by the end of their college search, wherever it leads, they will reach the same conclusion I have about the college admissions process—that it is inherently unfair, based on the flimsiest of precepts, and always biased towards those from privileged backgrounds.

Of course, it would be unfair to neglect the steps university administrators and admissions counselors have taken to incorporate diversity. Columbia, in particular, has always prided itself in ostensibly appearing as the “most diverse school in the Ivy League,” and a simple look around campus shows this to be the case—at least with respect to ethnic, racial, and extracurricular spheres. Yet, in terms of socioeconomic diversity, Columbia, alongside other prestigious schools in general, lags far behind its state-school counterparts.

Ideally, the only unifying selection criteria of admissions would be interest and intellect, and the “diversity” should cover all remaining aspects, from academic interests to extracurricular pursuits, producing a cross section of American students (albeit the most motivated ones).

So, is Columbia’s student body socioeconomically representative of America at large? An examination of financial aid statistics might provide us with the answer. Currently, approximately 50 percent of students receive an average of a 66 percent discount. Considering the fact that Columbia guarantees 100 percent of demonstrated need, we can safely assume that at least 40 percent of students are comfortably paying their way through college. Can any group of kids be considered economically diverse when almost half of them can easily pay $60,000 a year? The median household income in America, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is approximately $50,000. By this measure, half of the kids here should have their entire tuition covered by aid. Clearly, this is not the case.

It would be unfair to blame these statistics on the availability of financial aid. Columbia consistently ranks at the very top of “Best Value Colleges” and has earned a reputation for generosity relative to its endowment, particularly in the past few years. Therefore, any interpretation of this data can fairly conclude that the preponderance of the student body at this school comes from the upper echelons of America’s economic elite. Indeed, the responsibility for this homogeneity rests primarily on the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, which repeatedly touts the ubiquity of “diversity of all kinds” at Columbia.

It is especially unfortunate that socioeconomic background takes a backseat to other indices of diversity, when it is so instrumental in determining opportunities for the activities that are looked favorably upon by colleges. Even pursuits highlighted for the fact that “anyone can succeed in them” depend at least partially on the financial status of the participator. Success in debate, for example, may relate to whether one can afford expensive summer training programs. Musical success, to cite another, may be contingent on finding an expensive private teacher.

The common rebuttal to this line of argument is to cite cases in which underprivileged students beat the odds and end up at Princeton. Yet, these are clearly the exceptions to the rule, and the simple fact is that having poor parents significantly reduces one’s access to elite education in innumerable ways, not all of which can be empirically demonstrated, and no reparative measures—such as affirmative action—exist for these cases.

I will concede that any holistic process—as I believe college admissions should remain—can never be completely fair to every applicant, especially when there are so few spots available. Yet, when reviewers of applications seem so focused on amending every social inequity through the college admissions process, they should draw their attention to this different type of dearth in diversity.

The author is a Columbia College first-year.