Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T20:57:21.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poor Historiography: The “Poorest” in American Higher Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

Jana Nidiffer
Jana Nidiffer*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1947, the President's Commission on Higher Education issued the so-called “Truman Report” which identified five significant deterrents to completing a college degree: race, gender, religion, geography, and socioeconomic background. Over fifty years later, religious affiliation, geographic origins, and gender are no longer significant barriers to degree attainment. In fact, by 1991 women comprised a majority of America's undergraduates. At the time of the Truman Report, “race” referred generally to African Americans. Although no one would argue that African-American students (as well as other disadvantaged students of color) are attending, persisting, and graduating from colleges in the numbers deemed desirable, these students are better represented now than they were at the conclusion of World War II. In 1940, for example, African Americans with a college degree represented approximately two percent of the black population, while college-educated whites comprised over seven percent of white adults. By 1995 the gap had widened to 26 percent of white adults but only 15 percent of African Americans. The Truman Report considered a family poor if it had a cash income of less than $2,350 per annum—approximately 20 percent of all United States families. It cited research showing that when student ability (as measured by standard IQ tests) was held constant, boys from the higher income group were four times more likely to attend college than boys from the lowest stratum. By the early 1990s, students from the highest income quartile were ten times more likely to earn a college degree than those from the lowest quartile. Therefore, the only group identified by the Truman Report whose odds of attending college are actually worse today is the poor, regardless of racial background. When the persistent and pernicious interrelationship of poverty and minority status within the United States is acknowledged, socioeconomic background emerges as perhaps the most salient determinate of college attendance.

Type
Conversation
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , Fall 1999 , pp. 321 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 United States President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher Education for American Democracy: A Report (Washington: US GPO, 1947).Google Scholar

2 Mortenson, Thomas G. “Equity of Higher Education Opportunity: Women Reached Equity with Men in 1991 but Progress for Hispanics and Blacks Stalled for Last 15 Years,“ Postsecondary Education Opportunity, March 1992.Google Scholar

3 Mortenson, Thomas G. “Educational Attainment of Young Adults, 1940 to 1995,“ Postsecondary Education Opportunity, February 1997.Google Scholar

4 President's Commission, Higher Education for American Democracy, volume I, p. 25 and volume III, p. 13.Google Scholar

5 Mortenson, Thomas G. “Top Quartile Ten Times More Likely to Earn Baccalaureate Degree by Age 24 Than Students from Bottom Quartile of Family Income,“ Postsecondary Education Opportunity, April 1992.Google Scholar

6 See also Levine, Arthur and Nidiffer, Jana, Beating the Odds: How the Poor Get to College (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), pp. 2–6.Google Scholar

7 Mortenson, Thomas G. and Wu, Z., High School Graduation and College Participation of Young Adults by Family Income Backgrounds 1970 to 1989 (Iowa City: American College Testing Program, September 1990).Google Scholar

8 Katz, Michael B., Improving Poor People: The Welfare State, the “Underclass,” and Urban Schools as History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

9 The success of union-negotiated high wages for non-professional jobs has altered the association between working class occupations and low salaries for some workers in recent decades. The automobile industry is a prime example.Google Scholar

10 This scheme does not duplicate but was clearly influenced by Peggy Mcintosh's stages on the development of women's history. See McIntosh, Peggy, “Interactive Phases of Curricular Revision: A Feminist Perspective,“ Working Paper #124, Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, Wellesley, MA, October 1983. In my scheme of the representative categories of women's higher educational history, the following may serve as examples for clarification to readers familiar with the field: Traditional/Omission, where little, if anything is mentioned about women—e.g. Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965); More Inclusion, where women warrant some inclusion, but are not the main thrust of the argument—e.g. Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987); Center of Analysis, where women are the focus of the study and the treatment is generally broad—e.g. Solomon, Barbara Miller In the Company of Educated Women (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); Issue Specific, a specific issue, type, or concern of women's higher educational history is given a full analysis—e.g. Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982); Broader Social Analysis, where larger social, intellectual, psychological, or political forces are examined as the underlying theme—e.g. Rosenberg, Rosalind Beyond Separate Spheres: The Intellectual Roots of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

11 Rudolph, Frederick, The American Colleges and University: A History, (New York: Vintage Books, 1962); Kett, Joseph The Pursuit of Knowledge Under Difficulties: From Self-Improvement to Adult Education in America, 1750–1990 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994); Allmendinger, David Paupers and Scholars: The Transformation of Student Life in Nineteenth-Century New England (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975); Gorelick, Sherry City College and the Jewish Poor: Education in New York, 1880–1924 (NY: Schocken Books, 1982); and Levine, David O. The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, 1915–1940 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

12 Eisenmann, Linda “Women, Higher Education, and Professionalism: Clarifying the View,“ Harvard Educational Review, 66 (4), p. 858.Google Scholar

13 See Holtschneider, Dennis H., “Institutional Aid to New England College Students: 1740–1800“ (Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1997); and Levine, and Nidiffer, Beating the Odds, especially chapter 2.Google Scholar

14 See especially Wright, Bobby “For the Children of the Infidels: American Indian Education in the Colonial Colleges,“ American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 12 (3), 1988. Wright portrays colonial efforts at educating the Native Americans as tantamount to a development scam.Google Scholar

15 See Holtschneider, , “Institutional Aid to New England College Students.“Google Scholar

16 Rudolph, , The American Colleges and University, p. 18.Google Scholar

17 Rudolph, , The American College and University, pp. 62–67.Google Scholar

18 Rudolph, , The American College and University, p. 63.Google Scholar

19 Rudolph, , The American College and University, p. 278.Google Scholar

20 Rudolph, , The American College and University, pp. 98, 102.Google Scholar

21 Clifford, Geraldine Joncich “Saints Sinners, and People: A Position Paper on the Historiography of American Education,“ History of Education Quarterly, 15 (2), pp. 257–73.Google Scholar

22 Kett, , The Pursuit of Knowledge, see chapter 4, especially pp. 110–125.Google Scholar

23 Kett, , The Pursuit of Knowledge, p. 113.Google Scholar

24 Some of the more political aspects of worker education remained informal through socialist or workingmen's clubs throughout the Progressive Era. During the 1920s, however, formal working class education was established in various labor colleges. See Altenbaugh, Richard, Education for Struggle: The American Labor Colleges of the 1920s and the 1930s (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

25 Kett, , The Pursuit of Knowledge, p. 120.Google Scholar

26 Kett, , The Pursuit of Knowledge, especially chapters 5 and 6.Google Scholar

27 Allmendinger, , Paupers and Scholars, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

28 Allmendinger, , Paupers and Scholars, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

29 See for example, Morison, Samuel, Three Centuries of Harvard, 1636–1936 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936) and Noll, Mark Princeton and the Republic, 1768–1822: The Search for a Christian Enlightenment in the Era of Samuel Stanhope Smith (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

30 Gorelick, , City College and Jewish Poor, p. 83–84.Google Scholar

31 Clifford, Geraldine J. “Shaking Dangerous Questions from the Crease,“ Feminist Issues, 34 (2), Fall 1983.Google Scholar

32 Levine, , The American College and the Culture of Aspiration, p. 19.Google Scholar

33 Levine, , The American College, p. 20.Google Scholar

34 Clark, Daniel A. “The Two Joes Meet—Joe College, Joe Veteran’: The G.I. Bill, College Education, and Post-War America,” History of Education Quarterly, 38 (2), Summer, 1998.Google Scholar

35 Levine, , The American College, pp. 133–34.Google Scholar

36 Levine, , The American College, p. 87.Google Scholar

37 Levine, , The American College, p. 183. Brint, Stephen and Karabel, Jerome The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges & the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America, 1900–1985 (New York: Oxford University Press. 1989).Google Scholar

38 Kaestle, Carl F. “Standards of Evidence in Historical Research: How Do We Know When We Know?,“ History of Education Quarterly, 32 (3), pp. 361–66.Google Scholar

39 Goodchild, Lester F. and Huk, Irene Pancner “The American College History: A Survey of Its Historiographical Schools and Analytic Approaches from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the Present,“ in Smart, John C. ed., Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Practice, vol. 6 (New York: Agathon Press, 1990), pp. 201–90.Google Scholar

40 Novick, Peter, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question“ and the American Historical Profession, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar