Economic Stratification in Higher Level Education

The American dream largely bases itself upon the ideology that the United States of America is the land of equal opportunity. Through hard work and dedication anyone can achieve social and economic mobility.  The idea that everyone has the right to equal opportunity dates back to founding of the United States .  Yet, while the United States promotes itself as a nation of equality and freedom, in application a different reality presents itself.  Education in the United States, specifically higher level education, is widely seen as a frontier for economic mobility; however, access to higher level education is extremely stratified.  On January 18, 2017  The New York Times released data that maps out the average income and economic background of students for most colleges in the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/lewis-clark-college

The data presented by the New York Times comes from a recent study on mobility in higher level education written by economist Raj Chetty and coauthors John Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, along with many others. In their study, Chetty and colleagues found that parent income plays a role in one's access to college, particularly colleges with high mobility rates. On one hand, students who come from the lowest income families are the least represented at the most selective private schools. On the other hand, “students who come from families in the top 1% attend Ivy League colleges at 77 times the rate of children in the bottom income”. The data also showed that earning outcomes for students going to the same college are similar regardless of economic background. Yet, the colleges that have the highest mobility rates are almost exclusively highly selective institutions (Chetty). Institutions where the majority of students are already in the top income percentile.  What this data illustrates is that colleges that grant the highest mobility rates are the least accessible for low income families.

The data from Chetty’s study paints an entirely different picture from the ideology the United States so heavily bases itself on.  Opportunity for education and in return, economic mobility is not equal amongst everybody in the United States.   For example the median family income of a student at Lewis and Clark college $130,900 a  year.  60% of the student body come from the top 20 percent and only 1.4% of students who came from a poor family became a rich adult (New York Times).  How is it that higher level education, which is seen as one of the main frontiers for upward economic mobility, can be so blatantly stratified in a country that promotes itself on equal opportunity and mobility?      

In order to understand the conflict between American dream as an ideology versus its application one must understand the political and economic system present in the United States.  The political system of the United States as stated before largely aligns itself along norms of equality and justice (Bowles and Gintis 53). According to Bowles and Gintis in their book,, Schooling in Capitalist America,  the central problem for the political system in the united states is to “insure majority participation and representation in decision making  while protecting minorities against prejudice of the majority”.   The economic system of the United States is reversed. The way the economy is set up currently in the US encourages “minimal participation and decision making by the majority, the working class, while protecting the minority, business owners and managers”  (Bowles and Gintis 54).  The hierarchical approach of economics in this country has created a stratification in which the minority holds most of the economic power over the vast majority of the American people which in turn offers little economic mobility within the hierarchy.  While many political reforms have been instituted throughout the nation’s history, to maintain the ideological standpoint of equality,  the hierarchical approach of the economic system continues present itself in numerous ways.  

Bowles and Gintis argue that a major tool used to stabilize and sustain the country’s  economic system is the “use of widely accepted ideologies and justification”.  While the political system and the economic system of the United States seem contrastingly different they function off of each other.  By granting lower level education to every citizen yet making higher education increasingly less accessible the economic System can still maintain an illusion of mobility while allowing the minority in power to remain at the top of the hierarchy.   

Works Cited

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Chicago, IL: Haymarket , 2011. Google Books . Web. 24 Apr. 2017.

Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Emmanuel Saez, Nicholas Turner, and Danny Yagan. Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility∗. The Equality of Opportunity Project . N.p., 27 Jan. 2017. Web. 25 Apr. 2017.

"Economic diversity and student outcomes at Lewis & Clark." The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2017. Web. 27 Apr. 2017.