Seminar Conclusion Discussion  

      Rereading the articles and the M & M book and the provocative, thoughtful discussions is fun.  I’ve been able to do much good thinking.  Thank you, David.  Thank you all.  The question facing me in sparking the Conclusion discussion is what else can we say?  M & M in their book and then the other essays David offered lay out this situation – elites, wealthy and low-income student – in all the complexity.  The ardor and intensity in the postings by everyone show the range of strong, informed opinions on what this situation means.  I’m not sure I can find any agreement on how elites should handle the question of attracting more low-income/high ability students.  At the least, that’s evidence that this topic just is really, really hard.   

      My choice, then, for now is to declare the Conclusion a point of departure.  When I’m stuck in the present, looking ahead is often freeing.  On the issue of low-income/high ability students, what would we like the world to look like in ten years?  Often, this kind of discussion can highlight some steps that everyone agrees on.   

      I offer as the text the final paragraph of the Conclusion paper.  (Note for the interested:  Final chapter in the book revised more than a little.)  

From the paper:  

      The good news is that there is plenty of work to go around. Well-endowed selective colleges and universities can exert a leading role by expanding their representation of disadvantaged students. The broad access institutions that now enroll most low-income students can develop programs to foster their success in college and work with high schools to send clearer messages about what is needed for academic success in college. And policymakers in state and federal governments can work to use existing resources more effectively while also making commitments to expanded and improved programs to make a good college experience a realistic option for all who qualify. Do what you can with what you have where you are. 
 

      My focus is the issues here, not M & M the individuals or M & M in the role of college presidents.  The role – advocate or as one to take specific actions – of a president has boundaries.  The biggest being the day-to-day operation of the campus and the students, faculty and staff there.  Securing a desired future rests more with the trustees.  I am not, repeat, not judging this circumstance.  I am asking whether too often this discussion is constrained by what a president can do.  As far as the elites go, the characteristics of a student body reflect the values the trustees feel support the goals of the institution.  Current allocation of high talent/low income at elites reflects exactly what the trustees want.  I am straining here to separate this statement from what I, or anyone else thinks it ought to be.   

      Current discussion, the M & M book and the papers for the seminar, imply that definition of an elite is its financial resources as applied to the physical campus, those enrolled and employed.  Note:  I am not saying this is good or bad.  I am trying to identify the boundaries or the current frame of the debate.  By examining the boundaries, I am not suggesting that Williams money can, must, should be spent on any cause.   

      Question:  Current treasury, campus, students and employees are real boundaries.  Is that all?  Among alumni and other national and international networks, elites have huge pools of skill and brainpower.  Those can be applied without cash cost to the elite.  What are the non-cash/endowment assets Williams might apply to the low-income/high talent issue?   

      Discussion, as bound by papers and books covered so far, implies that an elite education is independent from, unconnected to the low-income/high talent situation and the lower representation of high talent/elite-admissible students the lower the income.  Is there, though, a link between elite education as delivered over the past 25 years and the situation that those qualified for an elite are so much more likely to be high income?   

      Question:  Is there cause and effect?  A relationship between the situation and what elites have been delivering as an education?  

      Question:  What could Williams, in the broadest sense, do to create an oversupply of low-income/high-talent students?  Assume for my question that actions do not draw on the cash/endowments of the elites.