Findings suggest strong socioeconomic and racial biases in the enrollment priorities of many public research universities

Public universities position themselves as remaining committed to access despite state funding cuts and despite student deficiencies, pointing to the adoption of access-oriented policies (e.g., need-based financial aid, outreach programs) as evidence of this commitment. In turn, policy discourse assumes that doubling the number ofhigh-achieving, under-represented students who apply to a university will double their enrollment. Therefore, policy interventions to increase college access tend to focus on changing student behavior rather than university behavior.

An alternative explanation for access inequality is that the enrollment priorities of some public research universities are biased against poor communities and communities of color. Decades of research on organizational behavior finds that formal policy adoption is often a ceremonial effort to appease external stakeholders, while internal resource allocation is a reliable indicator of organizational priorities, suggesting a“trust but verify”approach to university rhetoric about access.

Scholarship on“enrollment management”shows that universities are very purposeful about which students they pursue and expend substantial resources crafting their class. Therefore, knowing which student populations are targeted by university recruiting efforts can yield insights about university enrollment priorities.

This report analyzes off-campus recruiting visits (e.g., visit to a local high school) by public research universities as a means of understanding university enrollment priorities.

In contrast to rhetoric from university leaders, the findings suggest strong socioeconomic and racial biases in the enrollment priorities of many public research universities. A small number of universities exhibit recruiting patterns broadly consistent with the historical mission of social mobility for meritorious state residents. However,  most universities concentrated recruiting visits in wealthy, out-of-state communities while also privileging affluent schools in in-state visits. 

Although most universities did not exhibit racial bias in in-state visits, out-of-state visits consistently exhibited racial bias. Since most universities made many more out-of-state visits than in-state visits, overall recruiting visit patterns for most universities contribute to a student composition where low-income students of color feel increasingly isolated amongst growing cohorts of affluent, predominantly White, out-of-state students.These recruiting patterns and enrollment priorities are a function of a broken system of state higher education finance, which incentivizes universities to prioritize rich out-of-state students with lack-luster academic achievement. 

Related article