Running head: FINAL PAPER
1
Final Paper
Erica Garnett
SAE 726: Higher Education in the US
Missouri State University
FINAL PAPER
2
Question 1
In the era following the Civil War, the federal government played a pivotal role in the
development of higher education by directly and indirectly impacting institutional segmentation
and student access. Landmark federal legislation and Supreme Court rulings served as a catalyst
for development in higher education, in the decades following the Civil War.
19th Century
Institutional segmentation refers to how higher education developed into the division of
academia seen today. In the early 19th century, institutions were best known as homogenous
establishments meant to educate white males on the American democracy and to prepare them
for clergy or specialty work. Colonial higher education “from the country’s founding to the mideighteenth century was the product of generational traditions from its English past […] Early
schools focused on inculcating students with proper knowledge to first be good members of the
church, and secondly be good Christian members of their immediate community” (Owens, 2011,
p.4). However, as the focus of the nation began to shift, so too did the interest of students in
pursuing a more broad spectrum of educational opportunities. In the period of time following the
Civil War and up to the end of the 19th century, federal legislation had a major impact on higher
education.
One of the major pieces of legislation that came out of the 19th century was “the Morrill
Land Grant Act of 1862, [which] is conventionally described as an influential piece of federal
legislation that fostered [extended] access to useful public higher education” (Thelin, 2011, p.
75). The Act was implemented during a period of contention and unrest in the nation, and its
residual effects were actually an unintended bonus (Thelin, 2011). The Morrill Land Grant Act
of 1862 set up a system in which the federal government distributed land to states on the basis of
FINAL PAPER
their representation in Congress. States were then able to sell the land, and had to use the
proceeds from the sale to benefit a program of higher education – generally focused on
agriculture, engineering, or military-centered instruction (Thelin, 2011). Within the Act, states
had much flexibility in how funds would be allocated and programs would be implemented.
However, although the Act seemed to be a means to increase the effectiveness and reach of
higher education institutions, the original intention of the act was to encourage westward
expansion (Thelin, 2011).
By enacting the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, the federal government had a direct
role in facilitating institutional segmentation. Proceeds from the sale of land were often used by
states to establish land grant institutions and “state agricultural programs at what would today be
considered ‘private’ institutions […] and gave states broad encouragement to offer the liberal
arts” (Thelin, 2011, p. 77). Institutions began to segment into “specialties” in which students had
the opportunity to study. The act helped to facilitate institutional focus from a limited view of
education to a more segmented mode of instruction, and “helped expand the state college into
this ‘university’ model of federated units” (Thelin, 2011, p. 104).
Through the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, the federal government had a direct impact
on student access in relation to higher education. Since the Act called for an increase in the
science, math, and agricultural curriculum, the institutions which utilized the land grand funds
attracted a broader population of students interested in pursuing those educational opportunities
(Thelin, 2011). Although colleges provided more increase in access to specialized instruction,
that access did not infer a sense of perfect equality or heterogeneity within the institutions.
“Most colleges [still] enrolled students who lived nearby. Few were heterogeneous in the
composition of their student bodies […] As a result, colleges were segregated and often practiced
3
FINAL PAPER
unabashed discrimination as to whom they chose to admit” (Thelin, 2011, p. 107). Therefore,
while the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 made strides in creating access to higher education,
there were still limitations for that access which prevented some subsets of students from reaping
the benefits of the legislation.
“The principal transformation of the American campus between 1860 and 1890 was
nominally and superficially the change from ‘college’ to ‘university’” (Thelin, 2011, p. 103).
Americans were able to witness the new dawn of an era where higher education was viewed as a
more dynamic concept than it had been in the colonial period. However, the Morrill Land Act of
1862 was only the beginning of that innovative process, and required continual support and
funding from the state. “By 1890 state support for higher education was uneven at best and
usually uncertain…, state governments were especially frugal… about taxing citizens for regular,
generous support of… state colleges and universities” (Thelin, 2011, p. 105). Therefore, in order
to address some of the issues with the first act, a second piece of legislation was passed.
The federal government had a direct role in facilitating institutional segmentation with
the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1890. The act “replenished federal funding for the land-grant
programs and authorized the founding of additional land-grant colleges” (Thelin, 2011, p. 135).
It also extended the programs to include public Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU) in the Southern states that had not been eligible during the Civil War (Thelin, 2011).
With the Act of 1890, institutional segmentation began to really take form. Not only were
institutions beginning to be segmented on the basis of land grants and a focus on specific
curricula, they also encompassed classification based on racial segmentation. Subsequently the
appropriation of funds caused some institutions to dissolve. “In Kentucky for example, religious
denominational disputes caused Transylvania University to fall from favor in the state legislature
4
FINAL PAPER
[… which led] to the creation of a new state institution across town, Kentucky State College”
(Thelin, 2011, p. 83). Furthermore, the federal legislation continued to provide a path for
institutions to transition from a homogenous understanding of college to the heterogeneous
“university” ideal. “Throughout the new land-grant state colleges, professors often developed a
‘bootleg’ curriculum… [that allowed] specialties and subfields to sprout within the interstices of
formal catalog” (Thelin, 2011, p. 136). This method of instruction assisted in creating more
specialized “majors” that branched off of the original –agriculture, science, math, and
mechanics— focus of the land grant institutions, which eventually further contributed to
institutional segmentation. One way institutional segmentation was indirectly impacted by the
Morrill Acts was in the development and support of liberal arts colleges and public institutions.
Since states had flexibility in the way that they utilized the funds, the Morrill Acts helped to
segment some institutions into liberal arts colleges, while supporting the development of other
public institutions (Thelin, 2011).
The federal government also directly impacted student access with the passage of the
Morrill Land Grant Act of 1890. Since the Act provided funds to establish public HBCUs, more
black students were subsequently given added access to higher education. However, that
freedom of choice did come with some limitations. “The establishment of black land-grant
colleges illustrated both the gains and the limits of higher education in the Progressive era: it
extended access and services to blacks yet did so only within the framework of racial separation”
(Thelin, 2011, p. 136). Alternatively though, the federal government indirectly impacted student
access through the Morrill Act of 1890 by administering funds which led to an increase in the
type and number of institutions available to students.
5
FINAL PAPER
20th Century
During the 20th century, Americans were involved in a multitude of impactful wars,
including World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. The century also was formed
around the Great Depression and a number of instances of civil unrest and protest. As American
citizens began to embrace their freedoms and rights, to petition for formidable legislation, the
same influence was seen in the higher education arena. Several pieces of legislation were passed
and implemented as policies that would have a major effect on education for the future.
In the 20th century, the federal government proceeded to implement legislation, policies,
and Supreme Court rulings that had a major impact on higher education. Institutional
segmentation and student access continued to develop under the influence of the federal
government. One of the major pieces of legislation that resulted from the era was the 1944 GI
Bill. “At the end of the war, 12 million men and women […] would be demobilized all at once
[…] the newly discharged GIs would need jobs. Hundreds of thousands of civilians would also
lose well-paying jobs […and] massive unemployment loomed” (Levine & Levine, 2011, GI Bill
of Rights section). Out of fear of creating another Great Depression, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and the US Congress decided to enact the GI Bill to thwart the economic effects of the
end of World War II. “The 1944 bill guaranteed military personnel ‘a year of education for 90
days’ service, plus one month for each month of active duty, for a maximum of 48 months.
Tuition, fees, books, and supplies up to $500 a year would be paid directly to the college or
university” (Thelin, 2011, p. 263). Returning troops received the benefits as long as they
satisfied the eligibility requirements, and were able to take that funding to any institution deemed
acceptable under the GI Bill terms (Thelin, 2011).
6
FINAL PAPER
Through the enactment of the GI Bill, the federal government had a direct impact on
student access to higher education. All returning veterans (who met the eligibility requirements)
were able to utilize their benefits at almost any institution. Instead of being limited to the
institutions in their hometown or being restricted by financial cost, several GIs were given
immediate access and choice to attend a wide variety of institutions. “By 1946, GI Bill college
enrollments surpassed one million” (Thelin, 2011, p. 263).
The indirect impact of the federal government on institutional segmentation due to the GI
Bill was also apparent. “One legacy of the 1944 GI Bill was that quantitative change prompted
qualitative change in the structure and culture of the American campus […] the ways in which
colleges and universities went about evaluating student applicants” (Thelin, 2011, p. 265). Due
to the rapid increase in the number of students applying for admittance into higher education
institutions, admissions practices had to be restructured. This issue then also affected the manner
in which institutions marketed themselves to potential applicants.
Another major federal initiative that was created during the 20th century was the 1947
Truman Commission Report. "On 13 July 1946, President Harry Truman established a
Commission on Higher Education whose twenty-eight members were charged with the 'task of
examining functions of higher education in the democracy and the means by which they can best
be performed'" (Thelin, 2011, p. 268). The Commission asserted a number of findings and
recommendations which had further implications for future higher education policies. However,
the main focus of the Commission was on the implementation and support for junior colleges.
The commission clearly asserted that “higher education should be far more accessible to the
nation’s citizens. In fact, one of the best-known statements of the commission report was that
7
FINAL PAPER
approximately half of the nation’s citizens were capable of completing the first two years of
college” (Hutcheson, 2007, p. 3).
The direct impact that the federal government had on institutional segmentation, through
the Truman Commission Report, was pivotal. “[Junior colleges] were a major focus in the
commission report, which called for a dramatic expansion of ‘grades thirteen and fourteen’ with
no tuition, to broaden access” (Dongbin & Rury, 2007, p.10). The changing discussion of higher
education as something other than just the traditional four-year experience was one that helped to
segment institutions. After the report, an increase in the number of junior colleges (and
community colleges) led to a whole new educational sector for students and faculty, and led to
an even further division of the once hailed concept of a “college.”
The Truman Commission Report also indirectly impacted student access to higher
education. “As a result of the commission’s work, by the end of the 1940s, there was a clear and
highly visible statement on the need for U.S. higher education to change whom it admitted and
how it taught students” (Dongbin & Rury, 2007, p.10). With the influx of popularity and support
for junior colleges, students were given increased access and choice on not only which kind of
institution they wanted to attend (i.e., public or private) but also which type of institution would
suit them best (i.e., liberal arts or junior college). Another major focus of the report was on
providing “equal opportunity for all persons, to the maximum of their individual abilities and
without regard to economic status, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, or ancestry”
(Hutcheson, 2007, p. 3). This focus had more of an indirect impact on student access, through
helping to “set the stage” for the Civil Rights discussions of the 1960s.
Two major impetuses for higher education in the realm of equal access were the 1954
Brown v. Topeka Supreme Court decision and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “With the landmark
8
FINAL PAPER
Supreme court decision… the college and university system changed dramatically. Not only
were there concerns about access and affordability but the challenges of student activism and
diversity on campus demanded even more from the student affairs role” (Schuh, Jones, Harper,
& Associates, 2011, p. 70). Each movement created a catalyst effect for underrepresented
groups to stake claims to their right to have access to higher education.
The federal government had a direct and indirect impact on student access through the
1954 Brown v. Topeka Supreme Court decision and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, respectively.
“Access to higher education for African Americans increased following the US Supreme Court’s
1954 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decision declaring racial segregation illegal” (Harper
& Jackson, 2011, p. 106). Although several institutions waited for a while to desegregate their
colleges, the direct impact was residual and much more long-term. The decision gave black
students increased access to higher education by expanding their choices. Traditionally, African
American students attended HBCUs but with the manifestation of the Supreme Court decision,
black students were given the right to attend colleges outside of the HBCU sector. Actually,
“after the passage of the Higher Education Act, enrollments of African American students in
both historically black colleges and universities and predominantly white institutions doubled”
(Harper & Jackson, 2011, p. 106). The 1964 Civil Rights Act not only indirectly impacted
African American student access, but also access for women. “The enrollment of women in
college was no doubt aided by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which besides
prohibiting discrimination based on race, also prohibited discrimination based on gender”
(Gilbert & Heller, 2010, p. 6).
A major piece of federal legislation that was enacted in the 20th century was the 1965
Higher Education Act (HEA). The Act was created in response to President Lyndon B Johnson’s
9
FINAL PAPER
believed “need for more higher education opportunities for lower and middle income families,
program assistance for small and less developed colleges […] and utilization of college and
university resources to help deal with national problems like poverty and community
development” (National TRIO Clearinghouse, 2003, p. 1). The major effect of the Act was that
it established more federal funding for students to college, such as the Basic Educational
Opportunities Grant (Pell Grant). Its purpose was to “strengthen the educational resources of our
colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary and
higher education” (National TRIO Clearinghouse, 2003, p. 1). However, the HEA represented a
major shift in higher education policies and procedures. Instead of providing the funding to
institutions (as was done in the 1940s and 50s), the money was given to the student (Brown,
2013). The aid was awarded to students based on their financial need, and after the
reauthorization of the Act in 1978, another shift occurred – students’ financial aid packages
began to focus more on the distribution of loans rather than grants” (Brown, 2013).
The federal government had a direct impact on student access in regards to the 1965
Higher Education Act. Since the “BEOG was entitlement, any applicant who complied with its
terms was guaranteed financial aid” (Thelin, 2011, p. 324). Much like the veterans who received
the 1944 GI Bill, students who were granted financial aid from the HEA were given an increase
in access to higher education. “Financial aid was portable. It was awarded to the individual
student not to an institution …[which] meant that hundreds of thousands of recipients now had
both the means to go to college and a choice as to which college to attend” (Thelin, 2011, p.
324). The increase in college choice also became another direct impact to student access that the
federal government created through HEA. Also after enrollment began to decline in 1975,
institutions started pay closer attention to their student bodies. “Colleges started to acknowledge
10
FINAL PAPER
part-time students and returning, older students as constituencies that warranted courtesies and
accommodations” (Thelin, 2011, p. 326). The shift in higher education to more of a focus on the
student rather than the institution was a major symbolic transfer of power. Student access and
choice increased exponentially, as the realm of higher education became more about attracting
students to the institution. Additionally, “the 1978 HEA reauthorization saw the creation of the
Middle Income Student Assistance Act (MISAA), which increased the income limits on BEOG
grants and removed income caps entirely on federally subsidized loans, resulting in greatly
increased rates of borrowing in the student population” (Gilbert & Heller, 2010, p. 7). With the
implementation of this Act, even students who had been somewhat marginalized in terms of
access to education, were given assistance in funding their higher education endeavors.
During the late 20th century, more controversial pieces of legislation such as Title IX and
the Supreme Court affirmative action ruling in Regent of the University of California v. Bakke,
also had an effect on student access. Although the impact was more indirect, in regard to federal
government involvement, both pieces are important to bring up when discussing federal impact
on higher education. They both reiterated conversations of access and equality based on race and
gender, which were addressed in previous pieces of legislations. However with the
implementation of each item, the topic of access became more of a contentious issue in higher
education.
ACPA/NASPA Competencies
The federal government’s role in fostering institutional segmentation and undergraduate
access to higher education aligns itself with the spirit ACPA/NASPA competencies in that it
facilitated the development of higher education institutions to be more equal and inclusive of all
students. For student affairs professionals, the ACPA/NASPA competencies symbolize
11
FINAL PAPER
12
standards for which to measure the effectiveness and ability of practitioners to provide students
with a supportive educational environment where they can learn and thrive, and that spirit is
mirrored by the federal legislation over the past few centuries which have enhanced the
educational environment and increased institutional diversity and student access to higher
education.
This study of the federal government’s impact on institutional segmentation and
undergraduate heterogeneity has helped me wrap my arms around the History, Philosophy, and
Values competency. Through studying the development of higher education over the last two
centuries, I am better able to apply the history, philosophy, and values to my own work. I also
have walked away with a better understanding of how institutions, such as the “A&M” and land
grant colleges, were formed. This study has deepened my understanding of how the history of
higher education can be applied to the “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” competency (through
looking at the development of student access), and the “Ethical Professional Practice”
competency (through understanding the ethical issues involved in the history of US higher
education).
Question 2
Funding Public State Institutions
19th Century.
Finding a steady source or method of funding public state universities constantly comes
up as an issue in higher education. Talks of expanding or decreasing funds for higher education
are often included in political speeches and common dialect in reference to education. This issue
is one that has been around since the creation of American higher education institutions, and I
believe will continue to exist for as long as public institutions are not for profit and continue to
FINAL PAPER
be state funded. The value of education is very subjective, which is why I believe increasing
funding for higher education is often a contentious subject.
The issue with state funding in the early 19th century resulted from a lack of formalized
processes for higher education institutions to find those funds. In the early 19th century, colleges
relied mostly on student tuition fees as their main source of funding. Since higher education in
the colonial era was reserved as an elite establishment for upper-class, white, males, an astute
regulation of funding practices and procedures had not yet been established. “Furthermore, the
definition of the college experience, as a formal entity distinct from secondary education ad from
graduate studies, remained unclear” (Thelin, 2011, p. 97). Funding practices, although unformalized, were still necessary concerns for school administrators.
Most colleges and universities could not afford the luxury of selective admissions. A
paying student, however weak his or her secondary school preparation, was unlikely to be
turned away. Despite the publication of formal entrance requirements, most college
admissions exams were flexibly graded. When applicants were woefully underprepared
for college-level studies, colleges and universities responded by providing auxiliary
courses. Hence most American colleges dedicated a sizeable proportion of their curricula
to preparatory or remedial courses that would (for a price) help bring students up to par
for ‘college work.’ (Thelin, 2011, p. 96)
The history of the funding procedures and budget preparation for early higher education
institutions remains somewhat vague and perplexing to those who study the evolution of higher
education through a current-day lens. Institutions focused more on the preservation of religion
and democracy, rather than promoting individual pursuit of career interest and the development
of the “whole” student. Enrollment at the early institutions often waned, so the likelihood of
13
FINAL PAPER
maintaining a stable budget was probably slim. In schools, “the published tuition charges were
low, and even if they had been collected from a full student enrollment they would have been
inadequate to pay for salaries and services, let alone construction. When enrollment fell short, as
they often did, finances were even tighter” (Thelin, 2011, p. 98). However, through formalized
systems adapted from European customs, institutions received funding through the means of
endowments. “Colleges benefited from the world-view of wealthy entrepreneurs who
acknowledged their obligation to be stewards of important education endeavors. This was the
margin of wealth that enabled some colleges to get started with excellent facilities” (Thelin,
2011, p. 101). As institutional segmentation began to take form, the public and private sector
had to develop different ways of operating their funding procedures. Despite their successful
ventures with wealthy entrepreneurs and willing stewards, public colleges needed to develop
some type of formalized system for generating funds.
Late 19th Century.
“Although presidents were the principal fund-raisers, most institutions also depended on
a paid ‘college agent’ for the combined external activities of recruiting students and enlisting
donors and promoting college subscriptions” (Thelin, 2011, p. 99). State colleges implored the
use of a more professional staff, to secure funds for the institution. An official “donor
collecting” role started to form, which helped to alleviate some of the burdens of securing
financial donations. However, the issue of funding never seemed to completely disappear. In
fact, during the late 19th century, another set of donor agents began to emerge. “The fund-raisers,
whose nickname at the time were the ‘honorable beggars’ …were the catalysts of highereducation philanthropy who served as middlemen between donors and campus presidents”
(Thelin, 2011, p. 123). The task required so much art and skill that “during this period that the
14
FINAL PAPER
fund-raisers’ work […] was elevated to a sophisticated endeavor” (Thelin, 2011, p. 123). Even
the land grant institutions struggled with the issue of funding, because “most state legislatures
had yet to convince taxpayers that strong, recurring subsidies for public higher education ought
to be a role for state government” (Thelin, 2011, p. 135).
Early 20th Century.
“After 1900, major donors became less inclined to undertake the building of a new
campus… There was the recurrent worry that American higher education had become
overextended, with too many immature institutions” (Thelin, 2011, p. 145). The over-saturation
of higher education began to worry some donors, so at the turn of the century, funding became
even more of an issue, as the influx of endowment funds began to wane. Institutions had to turn
to innovative ways of procuring funds for their colleges. “The most attractive vehicle was the
philanthropic foundation – a source of horizontal influence across the institutional landscape”
(Thelin, 2011, p. 145).
Mid to Late 20th Century
The concern for funding public universities began to shift in the mid-20th century after
the implementation of the 1944 GI Bill and the 1965 Higher Education Act. Government
appropriations were given directly to students rather than institutions, and students were able to
take those funds with them to whichever institution they wished to attend. Also with an increase
in the number of students enrolling in college colleges had to create a more streamlined process
of funding their institutions.
One solution… was the mechanism for ‘formula funding’… The funding formula paid
the same amount per student, [so] a campus could enjoy a greater surplus of discretionary
money with each additional student it admitted. This was the stroke of genius that
15
FINAL PAPER
provided the fuel to run the engines of mass higher education, especially in the state
universities, in the 1950s and throughout the 1960s. (Thelin, 2011, p. 285)
Present Day (21st Century).
Although ‘formula funding’ worked for a while, it was not a long-term solution to the
funding question. States had to compete with state funding for public two-year colleges as well,
and had to compete with student enrollment at for-profit institutions. The creation and expansion
of athletic programs also have taken away some of the donor funds from the general operating
budget. “Public-university presidents continued their familiar complain about how little money
they’ve received from their state legislatures. Some even suggested the need to seek direct
federal aid” (Thelin, 2011, p. 385). As advancements in higher education have been established,
it seems that the funding tactics and issues have not kept up. “The size and complexity of the
university had become markedly different from years ago. New, federally sponsored research
programs, medical centers; auxiliary services, research parks, and foundations […] expanded the
overall base budget” (Thelin, 2011, p. 386). With continuous budget cuts, and a decline in state
revenues, “universities are forced to rely more on tuition for operating costs and for delivery of
academic services and programs” (Board of Governers, 2012, Background section).
Future ideas.
In the future I think public state universities will need to begin to rely on internal sources
of revenue rather than external donors or the sole support of the state legislature. Just as the
educators in the early 19th and 20th centuries had to do, I think administrators will need to
convene and come up with an innovative way to procure funds. Institutions will need to do a
thorough assessment and inventory of their operating budget to account for every dollar that is
spent by the university. Each sector of the institution (from the President’s office, all the way
16
FINAL PAPER
down to the student organizations) will have to have a definitive budget which indicates the
amount of resources and money each department can utilize. I also believe that institutions will
have to establish more accountability within their schools, and utilize partnerships with other
institutions as a means for trading resources.
In the future I also think public state universities will have to turn into more
democratically charged institutions. By establishing institution-wide relationships with
Congress, with third party advocacy groups, and by utilizing the vested power of national
associations such as NASPA or ACPA, public universities can have more of an influence in the
policies and acts passed by Congress. In the future, I think public universities will have to
borrow some of the funding methods that private institutions utilize in order to build donor
support. Initiatives such as the establishment of “stocks” where individuals could by shares of
the institution may also be a plausible alternative for the ever growing problem in regards to
funding state higher education institutions.
Access for Underrepresented Groups
In the past, the issue of access to higher education for underrepresented groups seemed to
focus on concerns with racial and gender limitations. While the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1890
extended federal funds to establish Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), it was
not up until then that access to higher education for African American students was widely
discussed. Black students were marginalized and excluded from the societal “elite” who
attended college. Even after 1890, access to higher education was limited for African American
students. Those students had a substantially smaller number of schools from which to choose,
and were not given the same treatment as far as support and financial assistance to attend
college. Furthermore, black students were basically confined to attending the HBCUs, and for
17
FINAL PAPER
those who dared to venture away from those colleges were often ostracized if they attended a
Predominantly White Institution (PWI).
Women also experienced limited access to higher education. The colonial view of
woman was simply that “she was intellectually inferior—incapable, merely by reason of being a
woman, of great thoughts. Her faculties were not worth training. Her place was in the home,
where man assigned her a number of useful functions” (Langdon, 2001, p. 2). Even after the
establishment of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, and the emergence of coeducation, the only
colleges that women readily had access to were normal schools, seminaries, or women’s colleges
specifically on creating teachers. Only after the country experienced the Great Depression and a
number of wars, were women really given access to higher education. As the men went away to
fight in the wars, women were the ones left on the home front not only to take care of the house
but also to work in the jobs that the men had left behind. In reality, it took the passage of the
1964 Civil Rights Act, for women to truly be given much more access and choice in higher
education.
While the dialogue regarding access has often centered on race and gender, another
underrepresented group is the focus of current discussion about access to higher education –
immigrants. “Those from families and cultures without a strong tradition of higher education
may face cultural barriers to college enrollment. In a more practical vein, immigrants are likely
to face an unfamiliar and confusing array of application requirements, forms, and deadlines”
(Gray, Rolph, & Melamid, 1996, p. 36). Immigrant students face the difficulty of having to
adjust to a new culture while simultaneously trying to gain access to all of the resources available
in higher education. They may face a variety of barriers to higher education. “Educational
systems vary greatly in terms of the material taught and the instructional methods used. Some
18
FINAL PAPER
immigrants may find that they are not adequately prepared for college-level work in the United
States, even if they have graduated from high school” (Erisman & Looney, 2007, p. 6). With the
transfer of cultural norms, traditions and values, immigrant students can get lost in the shuffle of
higher education policies and procedures, and not receive adequate access to higher education
benefits. “Lack of information about college admissions and financial aid processes can be a
formidable barrier for immigrants who wish to attend college” (Erisman & Looney, 2007, p 6).
Even issues with language barriers and mistranslation of words, can cause an immigrant student
to miss out on vital information as it pertains to higher education. Finally, “residency
requirements raise the question of how to treat immigrant applicants who meet length-of-stay
requirements but who do not have permanent resident status… nonpermanent residents [may be]
ineligible for in-state tuition within parts of the public higher education systems” (Gray, Rolph,
& Melamid, 1996, p. 39). Due to funding issues, being classified as an out-of-state student may
have a major effect on immigrant students access to higher education.
Future ideas.
The issue of access especially for immigrant students, is one that I believe we will
continue to hear about in the coming years. In order to tackle this issue in the future, I think
institutions need to be prepared to work with students who may be immigrants. While
administrators may be comfortable administering policies that have continually worked in the
past, as the face of the “college student” begins to shift, practitioners need to be ready to shift as
well. Universities can prepare to work with immigrant students by meeting with the
“International Students” office, or if there is not one, even meeting with the “Study Abroad”
office, to discuss how some of those cultural barriers can be broken. I believe institutions will
19
FINAL PAPER
have to learn to adjust to the students who come to the schools rather than make the student
adjust to the institution.
Supporting Diverse Communities of Students
The issue of support in higher education has been another debated topic. Since each
institution has a different mission and focus, the way the college shows support to its students
will be different as well. Similar to the issue of access, in the past institutions have had a tough
creating good support systems for individuals especially those grouped by gender or race.
In the late 19th century, when the land grant acts were implemented and the notion of
coeducation began to emerge, support systems for women within higher education seemed to be
missing.
Women at Cornell and the University of California for example, were not treated equally
or even well. Admission into the college or university hardly precluded segregation
within the walls. Tracking into particular courses and majors, discouragement from some
fields, and above all, exclusion from extracurricular organizations and activities were the
disappointing realities of coeducation. (Thelin, 2011, p. 98)
Although some colleges tried to establish access for women, the access was not backed by an
integration of successful support for the group. Even into the latter part of the 20th century, the
deficiency could be seen, as the lack of support for women’s athletic teams and facilities was
apparent. The passing of Title IX, “which set forth terms to prohibit discrimination in
educational programs” (Thelin, 2011, p. 347), demonstrated the apparent need for support
systems for women in higher education arenas.
The need for supportive systems for students of color in higher education was also
evident. Following the Brown v. Topeka Supreme Court ruling that segregation was illegal, “the
20
FINAL PAPER
desegregation efforts of state legislatures and state universities during the 1960s, were largely a
matter of halfhearted, token compliance” (Thelin, 2011, p. 304). There was no genuine support
for students of color in place.
Although work still needs to be done in regard to creating supportive environments for
diverse communities of students, the current support systems for women and students of color
(i.e., Women’s Center, Multicultural Student Services, etc.) have proven that higher education
has come a long way within the past few decades. However, the current issue of support that
higher education institutions need to tackle, deals with providing support to students who
identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender. Although some universities have made
strides to create those support systems, institutions must prepare to face that issue in the coming
years.
Future ideas.
In the future, colleges can tackle the issue of support by simply surveying the students
who will be entering their institutions and asking them what type of support they will need or
would like to have. For example, due to the increasing enrollment of nontraditional and transfer
students, institutions already need to be preparing to create systems that will support the specific
needs of those students.
ACPA/NASPA Competencies
The three issues I have discussed, directly align with the “Assessment, Evaluation, and
Research (AER),” “Student Learning and Development,” and “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion”
competencies. I think in order for practitioners to get a handle on the issues and be better
equipped to deal with them, that they would have to implore the use of all three competencies.
Most of the discussion I posed centered on creating a more inclusive environment where students
21
FINAL PAPER
can thrive and learn. I also discussed the funding issue which correlates with the AER
competency. I believe if administrators are able to utilize the AER competency when discussing
funding, that they will be better equipped to tackle the issue.
22
FINAL PAPER
23
References
Board of Governers. (July 2012). Fact sheet: Historical trends in state university system base.
State University System of Florida. Retrieved from
http://www.flbog.edu/resources/_doc/publications/infobrief/7.2012%20State-FundingHistorical-Trends-Fact-Sheet-Press-Room.pdf
Brown, O. G. (2013) Week Nine. Retrieved from Missouri State University SAE 726 Blackboard
site.
Dongbin, K., & Rury, J. L. (2007). The changing profile of college access: The Truman
Commission and enrollment patterns in the Postwar Era. History of Education Quarterly,
47(3), 302-327. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5959.2007.00102.x
Erisman, W. and Looney, S. (2007). Report by Institute for Higher Education Policy Opening the
Door to the American Dream: Increasing higher education and success for immigrants.
Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved from
http://www.dsa.csupomona.edu/ab540/files/OpeningTheDoor_8059.pdf
Gilbert, C., and Heller, D. E., (2010). The Truman Commission and its impact on Federal higher
education policy from 1947 to 2010. Association for the Study of Higher Education
Annual Conference. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://edwp.educ.msu.edu/dean/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/ASHE_2010_Gilbert_Heller.pdf
Gray, J.M., Rolph, E., Melamid, E. (1996). Immigration and Higher Education: Institutional
response to changing demographics Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR751.pdf
Harper, S., & Jackson, J. (2011). Introduction to American Higher Education. New York:
Routledge.
FINAL PAPER
Hutcheson, P. A., (2007). The Truman Commission’s vision of the future. Thought & Action.
Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_07_11.pdf
Kim, J. K. (2005). From Bakke to Grutter: Rearticulating Diversity and Affirmative Action in
Higher Education. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(2), 12-19.
doi:10.1207/s15327892mcp0702_3
Langdon, E. A. (2001). Women's colleges then and now: Access then, equity now. Peabody
Journal of Education (0161956X), 76(1), 5-30.
Levine, M. and Levine, A. G. (2011), Who said the Government can’t do anything right? The
World War II GI Bill, the growth of science, and American prosperity. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 81: 149–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01082.x
National TRIO Clearinghouse (2003). The early history of the Higher Education act of 1965.
Retrieved from http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/trio_clearinghouseThe%20Early%20History%20of%20the%20Higher%20Education%20Act%20of%20196
5.pdf
Owens, J. (2011). Enlightenment and Education in Eighteenth Century America: A Platform for
Further Study in Higher Education and the Colonial Shift. Educational Studies, 47(6),
527-544. doi:10.1080/00131946.2011.621073
Schuh, J. H., Jones, S. R., Harper, S. R., & Associates. (2011). Student services: A handbook for
the profession (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thelin, J. (2011). A history of American Higher Education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins
University Press.
24