The Mobility Maze: Gateways and Gatekeepers in Higher Education

Overview

• Journalist Paul Tough explores the role of higher education in social mobility in the U.S. in his book The Years that Matter Most: How College Makes or Breaks Us.
• Focuses on gatekeepers of selective colleges, particularly the College Board and its SAT admissions test.
• Discusses the complex dynamics between social mobility, college admissions, and the administration of standardized testing.

SAT and College Board

• Origin of the SAT: Created to identify bright students from diverse backgrounds for elite New England colleges.
• Role in Selective vs. Non-Selective Colleges: SAT plays a significant role in admissions for selective colleges while less so in non-selective.
• College Board's Dual Nature:
  • Aims to serve colleges and students but also operates like a for-profit entity.
  • Faces a competitive market with the ACT.
• Leadership and Initiatives: Under CEO David Coleman, initiatives aimed to enhance equity in college admissions have had mixed results.

Key Initiatives by the College Board

Redesign of the SAT

• Aligns more closely with high school curricula, reducing complexity.

Informational Packets for Low-Income Students

• Aimed at encouraging applications to selective institutions but failed to produce desired outcomes.

Khan Academy Partnership

• Free SAT prep resources were less utilized by disadvantaged students despite being available.

Challenges and Controversies

• Reporting and Transparency: College Board criticized for not being transparent about the outcomes of its initiatives.
• Adversity Index: Designed to account for student's socio-economic backgrounds but criticized for not significantly aiding admissions equity.

Test-Optional Movement

• College Board's Opposition: Criticized test-optional policies, arguing SAT scores aid low-income students—a claim Tough disputes.
• Grade Inflation Argument: The College Board argues grade inflation favors wealthy students, thus supporting the use of SAT.

Socioeconomic Impacts

• Tough argues that public higher education underfunding harms low-income students' ability to succeed.
• Proposes investing more resources into public higher education to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Conclusions and Reflections

• Tough advocates for viewing public higher education as a collective societal benefit.
• Encourages a return to valuing education as a public good, similar to past U.S. initiatives like the GI Bill.
• Emphasizes the potential for higher education to be a meaningful engine of opportunity if systemic changes are made.