My tutorial paper this week answered the following prompt:
Should educational centers be penalized for not facilitating socio-economic mobility? Why or why not? Illustrate your answer with relevant case studies.
This brought me into the world of higher education, an area in which I most certainly do not specialize. However, it was interesting to read about many different options that institutions of higher education have in facilitating socio-economic mobility. Lois Bibbings (2006, p. 83) separates "widening participation policies" into two separate types:
| Hard Options "include positive discrimination in the form of quotas or preferential selection methods, which aim to assist institutions to meet participation targets" (Bibbings 2006, p. 83) | Soft Options "entail the use of positive action to promote equality of opportunity and, thus, seek to assist disadvantaged groups to compete more effectively" (Bbibbings 2006, p. 83) |
The key term I focused on here is the "positive discrimination," mentioned in the definition of "hard options," which unfairly discriminates against applicants from good schools" (p. 75). I think it does much more than that and discriminates against hard work and determination!
I concluded in my paper that any kind of discrimination should be penalized, either "positive" or negative. What good is "eliminating" discrimination by substituting one type for another?? All it does is promote and even create tension amid the population!
I concluded in my paper that any kind of discrimination should be penalized, either "positive" or negative. What good is "eliminating" discrimination by substituting one type for another?? All it does is promote and even create tension amid the population!
Removing all discrimination would prompt universities to use more merit-based selection methods which treat students as individuals, not just a set of test scores. They should take students' situations into account and take those who have strong work ethics and who have the potential to excel in college. At the same time, colleges and universities should lower the cost of attendance and provide equal amounts of merit- and need-based financial aid. According to the College Board, the cost of attending any kind of higher education has tripled and in some cases almost quadrupled in the past forty years. Talk about not facilitating socio-economic mobility!
This burden does not just fall on the "institution[s] of higher learning," oh no. Secondary schools can begin the process much earlier than universities can. One big problem among students of low socio-economic status (SES) is that there is a certain level of mystery about higher education: they tend to think they are not “good enough” nor is it “for the likes of them,” regarding it as “highly risky and/or impossible” (p. 77). Schools need to demystify higher education and explain to both parents and students the options available to them upon graduation. They also must remind the student that in many cases, not going to post-compulsory education is an option as well! This is what guidance counselors are for!
I propose that universities pair up with struggling schools and provide outreach activities to all students (visits, tutoring, etc.). The key is to bring low SES students into the fold, demystifying higher education while also providing more services to every possible applicant.
Do you fundamentally disagree?
Want to "let me have it"?
Comment! I'd love to hear about it!
Want to "let me have it"?
Comment! I'd love to hear about it!
RSS Feed