Research Blog #9

Argument and Counter-Argument 
My paper aims to explore how students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds are at a great disadvantage at the onset of college relative to their higher-SES counterparts. It also aims to discuss how the continuing privatization of higher education institutions further limits or obstructs the low-socioeconomic student pathway to success. Low-SES students are limited in the choices they can make as a student-- whether it be what majors they can take, what type of social life they can have, or what they can physically afford to do or buy. To explore how low-SES students are limited in their choices and, therefore, at a disadvantage my paper will first look at  how the privatization of higher education magnifies the strain on those students. I will look at the disadvantages in resources that low-SES students have in regards to finance, parental guidance, and educational resources. I will also discuss how these disadvantages create a ripple affect that spills over to create more disadvantages like the lack of a social life, or time to study because of work, or the inability to join a sorority, which in turn leads to limited networking opportunities. 

I had a lot of trouble finding an actual source containing a counter-argument, but I can give a counter-argument that university leaders and politicians give when pressed about the issue of privatization and how it negatively affects so many students. Politicians say that although federal funding is cut, states will still spend a huge amount of public money on higher education. University leaders say that they had tied high tuition to federal aid. Both parties also say that poor students are not actually hurt by privatization because college is the best investment for them to make. These statements are not entirely true. While the amount of federal aid that the government and colleges give out has increased, tuition has grown at a much larger rate, thus the financial aid increase is not proportional. Relying on states to food the bill for higher education is not only irresponsible, but untrue because so much of the cost of schooling is still absorbed by students through tuition. Students from low-SES backgrounds do have a shot at a better job post-grad than they would if they had not attended college, however, many low-SES students find that their loans and the interest accumulated by them are too much to pay off. 
In a New York Times article titled “Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours”, the author discusses how the Obama administration and Congress expanded Pell eligibility, causing the number of Pell recipients to rise. Some university leaders pointed to this increase as a sign that they took economic diversity much more seriously than in the past, however, research shows that this increase stems from expansion of the program. It seems as though university leaders and politicians will point to any small glimmer that this method is working while ignoring the large quantity of facts in front of them.