How Rich Universities Get Richer - …Leave Everyone Else Behind

Sep 14, 2026

Uploaded by Theodore

Higher education has shifted toward greater inequality as the richest colleges strengthened their resources, attracted the most in-demand students, and secured top faculty and facilities. While federal aid, state subsidies, and need-blind admissions aim to broaden access, merit scholarships, tuition discounting, and alumni-based preferences often intensify disparities. The article traces how late-20th-century economic divergence and rising donations rewarded already advantaged institutions, producing a system of baccalaureate education that is even more unequal than decades earlier.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time25 min

AccessFree to download

How Rich Universities Get Richer

Growing inequality in the college market

Policies that widen disparities

Historical shift since the 1970s

Donations, demand, and the Matthew effect

How Rich Universities Get Richer-The Chronicle of Higher Education 10/27/17, 11:56 AM 􀀁 PREMIUM ACCESS PROVIDED BY HARVARD UNIVERSITY NEWS OPINION DATA ADVICE JOBS LOG IN SUBSCRIBE 􀀡 SECTIONS FEATURED: 10 Teaching Innovators How Can We Save Our Students From Themselves? The Daily Briefing How to Be a | Daenarch | 􀀣 | | --- | --- | 􀀢 Back to Search Results THE CHRONICLE REVIEW How Rich Universities Get Richer …and Leave Everyone Else Behind By Charles T. Clotfelter OCTOBER 27, 2017 􀀁 PREMIUM O ver the last 40 years, no one has proposed that the guiding purpose of higher education should be to aggravate inequality. Indeed, policy makers and college leaders have declared the opposite aspiration. They have spoken of colleges as meritocratic engines of opportunity. Yet the historical record tells a contrary story, one of widening disparities in the college market. The richest colleges have become richer, gathering an increasing share of the most in-demand students and exposing them to the most sought-after faculty and the highest-quality facilities and campus resources. In short, the leaders of rich colleges have presided over a remarkable increase in inequality. This matters precisely because increasing inequality is not the intent of policy makers or college leaders. Federal aid, state subsidies, and need-blind admissions all aim to make college open and affordable to qualiﬁed students regardless of economic circumstance. But other policies and practices used by colleges to attract students, including state-sponsored merit scholarships, tuition discounting, and admission preferences for children of alumni, often have the opposite effect—they exacerbate inequality. To fully understand this profound shift in higher education, we must look to the recent past. Around 1970, the economic outlook for colleges seemed bleak. Costs were outpacing revenues, and the prospects for a return to good times seemed unlikely. The title of a 1971 report, "The New Depression in Higher Education," summed up the dire circumstances. A decade later, a university as seemingly secure as Duke was considering radical surgery to put itself on ﬁrmer ﬁnancial footing. Duke’s chancellor, A. Kenneth Pye, proposed eliminating the university’s education and undergraduate nursing programs—two departments with signiﬁcant enrollments—among other cuts. Arguing that Duke’s ﬁnancial position compared unfavorably with public universities such as the University of North Carolina, which had been enjoying real increases in state appropriations, he advocated retrenchment as the only way for Duke to remain competitive. Natalya Balnova for The Chronicle Review [http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Rich-Universities-Get/241567](http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Rich-Universities-Get/241567) Page 1 of 6 Pessimism about the sector ultimately proved unwarranted, at least for colleges at the top of the prestige pecking order. Harvard and Stanford, both designated by the "New Depression"report as being in serious ﬁnancial trouble, soon soared in resources and prestige. Duke did much the same, without resorting to many of the cuts discussed by its chancellor. Indeed, around 1980, most top colleges and universities, especially private ones, entered a period of unprecedented prosperity. What happened? Earnings of households in the top rungs of income distribution began to swell, while incomes for almost everyone else stagnated. For the wealthiest colleges, this intensifying inequality returned a dividend that was as handsome as it was unanticipated. Part of the dividend resulted from the surge in the demand for places in these selective colleges. Another chunk was the rise in donations spawned by the new afﬂuence. In a perfect illustration of the enigmatic Matthew effect (the tendency for the rich to get richer, so named by the sociologist Robert Merton for a New Testament parable), these new donations, because donors tended to giv

FAQs

What central change does the article describe in higher education?

It describes an increase in inequality, where the richest colleges have become richer and more influential in attracting top students and resources.

Which college practices can worsen inequality despite policies meant to expand access?

State-sponsored merit scholarships, tuition discounting, and admission preferences for alumni children can exacerbate inequality even when aid is designed to support qualified students.

How did household income and donations contribute to the rise of top colleges?

Income growth at the top increased demand for selective colleges and boosted donations, which often flowed to institutions donors were already connected to—strengthening the least needy among them.

Sep 14, 2026

Uploaded by Theodore