This study develops a comprehensive theoretical framework regarding the evolution of the class divide in postsecondary education. I conceptualize three prototypes of class inequality—effectively maintained, declining, and expanding—and associate their emergence with the level of competition in college admissions. I also unearth the twin mechanisms, exclusion and adaptation, that link class hierarchy to a highly stratified postsecondary system in an allegedly meritocratic environment. Intra- and inter-cohort comparisons reveal that while the class divide regarding enrollment and access to selective postsecondary schooling is ubiquitous, it declines when competition for slots in higher education is low and expands during periods of high competition. In such a regime of effectively expanding inequality (EEI), a greater emphasis on a certain selection criterion (like test scores) in admission decisions—required to sort the influx of applicants—is bolstered by class-based polarization vis-à-vis this particular criterion. This vicious cycle of exclusion and adaptation intensifies and expedites the escalation of class inequality. The results show that adaptation is more effective than exclusion in expanding class inequality in U.S. higher education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderKarl L.HolupkaScottPallasAaron M.. 1987. Social Background and Academic Determinants of Two-Year Versus Four-Year College Attendance: Evidence from Two Cohorts a Decade Apart.American Journal of Education96:56–80.
2.
AlexanderKarl L.PallasAaron M.HolupkaScott. 1987. Consistency and Change in Educational Stratification: Recent Trends Regarding Social Background and College Access.Research in Social Stratification6:161–85.
3.
AlonSigalTiendaMarta. 2007. Diversity, Opportunity and the Shifting Meritocracy in Higher Education.American Sociological Review72(3):487–511.
4.
OrleyAshenfelter. 1978. Estimating the Effect of Training on Earnings.The Review of Economics and Statistics60(1):47–57.
5.
AshenfelterOrleyCardDavid. 1985. Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs.The Review of Economics and Statistics67(4):648–60.
6.
BakerTherese L.VelezWilliam. 1996. Access to and Opportunity in Postsecondary Education in the United States: A Review.Sociology of Education69(Extra Issue):82–101.
7.
Barron's. 1982, 1992. Profiles of American Colleges. Hauppauge, New York: Barron's Educational Series.
8.
BlauJudith R.MollerStephanieJonesLyle V. 2004. Why Test? Talent Loss and Enrollment Loss.Social Science Research33:409–34.
9.
WilliamBowen William.2006. Extending Opportunity: What Is To Be Done? In College Access: Opportunity or Privilege?, edited by McPhersonS. M.SchapiroM. O.. New York: The College Board.
10.
BowenWilliam G.BokDerek. 1998. The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admission. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BowenWilliam G.KurzweilMartin A.TobinEugene M.. 2005. Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
12.
BrelandHunterMaxeyJamesGernandReneeCummingTammieTrapanCatherine. 2002. Trends in College Admission 2000: A Report of a National Survey of Undergraduate Admission Policies, Practices, and Procedures. New York: The College Board.
13.
DerekBriggs Derek.2001. The Effect of Admissions Test Preparation: Evidence from NELS:88.Chance14:10–22.
14.
BrownSusan K.HirschmanCharles. 2006. The End of Affirmative Action in Washington State and Its Effect on the Transition from High School to College.Sociology of Education79:106–130.
15.
BuchmannClaudiaRoscignoVincent J.CondronDennis J.. 2006. The Myth of Meritocracy? SAT Preparation, College Enrollment, Class and Race in the United States.Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, August 2006.
16.
CardDavidKruegerAlan. 2005. Would the Elimination of Affirmative Action Affect Highly Qualified Minority Applicants? Evidence from California and Texas.Industrial & Labor Relations Review58(3):416–34.
17.
CarnahanKristenColettiChira. 2003. SAT Verbal and Math Scores Up Significantly as a Record-Breaking Number of Students Take the Test: Average Math Score at Highest Level in More than 35 Years. Report N0218. New York: The College Board.
18.
CarnevaleAnthony P.RoseStephen J.. 2004. Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions. Pp. 101-156 in America's Untapped Resources, edited by KahlenbergR. D.. New York: The Century Foundation Press
19.
CharlesClotfelter Charles.1993. Demand for Undergraduate Education. Pp. 1-139 in Economic Challenges in Higher Education, edited by ClotfelterC. T.EhrenbergR. G.GetzR. G.SiegfriedJ. J.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
The College Board. 2008. SAT Scores Stable as Record Numbers Take Test.Press release August 26, 2008. New York: College Board Publications. Retrieved March 2009 (http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/197846.html).
21.
RandallCollins. 1971. Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification.American Sociological Review36:1002–1019.
22.
CrouseJamesTrusheimDale. 1988. The Case against the SAT. Chicago, IL and London, UK: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
DaviesScottGuppyNeil. 1997. Fields of Study, College Selectivity, and Student Inequalities in Higher Education.Social Forces75:1417–38.
24.
DuffyElizabeth A.GoldbergIdana. 1998. Crafting a Class: College Admissions and Financial Aid, 1955-1994. Ewing, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
EllwoodDavid TKaneThomas J.. 2000. Who is Getting a College Education? Family Background and the Growing Gaps in Enrollment. Pp. 283-324 in Securing the Future: Investing in Children from Birth to College, edited by DanzigerS.WaldfogelJ.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
FischerClaude S.HoutMichaelSanchezMartin SanchezSamuelR. R.SwidlerAnnVossKim. 1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
28.
DanielGolden. 2006. The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. New York: Crown Publishers.
29.
SaraGoldrick-Rab. 2006. Following Their Every Move: How Social Class Shapes Postsecondary Pathways.Sociology of Education79(1):61–79.
30.
JamesHearn James.1984. The Relative Roles of Academic, Ascribed, and Socioeconomic Characteristics in College Destinations.Sociology of Education57:22–30.
31.
JamesHearn James.1988. Attendance at Higher-Cost Colleges: Ascribed, Socioeconomic, and Academic Influences on Student Enrollment Patterns.Economics of Education Review7(1):65–76.
32.
JamesHearn James.1990. Pathways to Attendance at the Elite Colleges. Pp. 121-46 in The High Status Track: Studies of Elite Schools and Stratification, edited by KingstonP. WLewisL. S.. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
33.
JamesHearn James.1991. Academic and Nonacademic Influences on the College Destinations of 1980 High School Graduates.Sociology of Education64:158–71.
34.
GregoryJackson. 1988. Did College Choice Change During the Seventies?Economics of Education Review1:15–27.
35.
JencksChristopherRiesmanDavid. 1968. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
36.
JeromeKarabel. 1984. Status-Group Struggle, Organizational Interests, and the Limits of Institutional Autonomy: The Transformation of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1918-1940.Theory and Society13(1):1–40.
37.
JeromeKarabel. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
38.
KarabelJeromeAstinA. W. 1975. Social Class, Academic Ability, and College Quality.Social Forces53(3):381–98.
39.
DavidKaren. 1990. Toward a Political-Organizational Model of Gatekeeping: The Case of Elite Colleges.Sociology of Education63:227–40.
40.
DavidKaren. 2002. Changes in Access to Higher Education in the United States: 1980-1992.Sociology of Education75:191–210.
41.
KerrClarkDunlopJohn T.HarbisonFredrick H.MyersCharles A.. 1960. Industrialism and Industrial Man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.American Journal of Political Science44:347–61.
43.
KingstonPaul W.LewisLionel S.. 1990. Undergraduates at Elite Institutions: The Best, the Brightest, and the Richest. Pp. 105-120 in The High-Status Track, edited by KingstonP. W.LewisL. S.. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
44.
AnnetteLareau. 2000. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. Oxford, UK: Roman and Littlefield.
45.
LareauAnnetteHorvatErin M.. 1999. Race, Class and Cultural Capital in Family-School Relationships.Sociology of Education72:37–53.
46.
NicholasLemann. 1999. The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
47.
BridgetLong Bridget.2004. How Have College Decisions Changed Over Time? An Application of the Conditional Logistic Choice Model.Journal of Econometrics121:271–96.
48.
LongJ. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
49.
MarkLong. 2004. Race and College Admissions: An Alternative to Affirmative Action.The Review of Economics and Statistics86:1020–33.
50.
SamuelLucas Samuel.1999. Tracking Inequality: Stratification and Mobility in American High Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
51.
SamuelLucas Samuel.2001. Effectively Maintained Inequality: Education Transitions, Track Mobility, and Social Background Effects.American Journal of Sociology106(6):1642–90.
52.
RobertMare Robert.1980. Social Background and School Continuation Decisions.Journal of the American Statistical Association75:295–305.
53.
MareRobert D.WinshipChristopher. 1988. Ethnic and Racial Patterns of Educational Attainment and School Enrollment. Pp. 173-95 in Divided Opportunities: Minorities, Poverty and Social Policy, edited by SandefurG. D.TiendaM.. New York: Plenum Press.
54.
MasseyDouglas S.CharlesCamille Z.LundyGarveyFischerMary J.. 2003. Source of the River: The Social Origin of Freshmen at America's Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
PatriciaMcDonough Patricia.1994. Buying and Selling Higher Education: The Social Construction of the College Applicant.Journal of Higher Education65:427–46.
56.
McPhersonS. MichaelSchapiroMorton Owen. 2006. Introduction. In College Access: Opportunity or Privilege?, edited by McPhersonS. M.SchapiroM. O.. New York: The College Board.
57.
MorrisMartinaWesternBruce. 1999. Inequality in Earnings at the Close of the Twentieth Century.Annual Review of Sociology25:623–57.
58.
RaymondMurphy. 1988. Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2008. Digest of Education Statistics, 2007. Tables 179 and 191. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. (NCES 2008-022).
62.
FrankParkin. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. London, UK: Tavistok.
63.
TalcottParsons. 1970. Equality and Inequality in Modern Society, or Social Stratification Revisited. Pp. 13-72 in Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970s, edited by IndianapolisE. Laumann.. IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
64.
PersellCaroline HodgesCatsambisSophiaCooksonPeter WJr.1992. Differential Asset Conversion: Class and Gendered Pathways to Selective Colleges.Sociology of Education65:208–225.
65.
DonaldPowers Donald.1993. Coaching for the SAT: A Summary of the Summaries and an Update.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice12:24–39.
66.
RafteryA. E.HoutM.. 1993. Maximally Maintained Inequality: Expansion, Reform and Opportunity in Irish Education, 1921-1975.Sociology of Education66:41–62.
67.
Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments 1983-1984. 1985. Official Register of Harvard University. Vol. LXXXII JULY 2, 1985. Retrieved March 2009 (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/2582287?n=21175&s=4).
68.
Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments 1984-1985. 1986. Official Register of Harvard University. Vol. LXXXI JULY 2, 1986. Retrieved March 2009 (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/viewtext/2582287?n=21903&s=4).
69.
JesseRothstein Jesse.2004. College Performance Predictions and the SAT.Journal of Econometrics121:297–317.
70.
DonaldRubin Donald.1987. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
71.
PeterSacks. 1999. Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
72.
PeterSacks. 2007. Tearing Down the Gates: Confronting the Class Divide in American Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
JosephSchafer Joseph.1999. NORM: Multiple Imputation of Incomplete Multivariate Data Under a Normal Model, Version 2. Software for windows 95/98/NT.
75.
SchneiderBarbaraMartinezSylviaOwensAnn. 2006. Expanding the Educational Opportunities for Hispanics in the U.S. Pp. 179-227 in Hispanics and the Future of America, edited by TiendaM.MitchellF.. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
76.
WilliamSewell. 1971. Inequality of Opportunity for Higher Education.American Sociological Review36:793–806.
77.
CharlesTilly. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
DonaldTreiman. 1970. Industrialization and Social Stratification. Pp. 373-94 in Social Stratification: Research and Theory for the 1970s, edited by LaumannE. O.. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
80.
Trends in College Pricing. 2005. New York: The College Board.
81.
Trends in Student Aid. 2005. New York: The College Board.
82.
RuthTurleyLopezRuthSantosMartinCejaCecilia. 2007. Social Origin and College Opportunity Expectations Across Cohorts.Social Science Research36(3):1200–1208.
VigdorJacob L.ClotfelterCharles T.. 2003. Retaking the SAT.The Journal of Human Resources38:1–33.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
