On Sept. 30, in Ernst Common Room, Anthony Jack, Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology at Harvard University, examined the divergent socialization experiences of lower-income youths at a Connecticut College symposium.
His talk entitled, “(No) Harm in Asking: Class, Acquired Cultural Capital, and Academic Engagement at an Elite University,” was sponsored by the Dean of Inclusion and Equity. It was the first in a series of common hour events focused on the African-American experience. In exposing the layers of social stratification that exist within the neediest of minorities, Jack calls upon colleges to recognize the ways in which socioeconomic position corresponds to academic prowess on campuses.
Jack focused largely on how institutional practices can exacerbate the exclusion felt by a university’s most vulnerable students. Beginning in the late 1990s, several colleges adapted no-loan policies to remove the image of higher education as a bastion for the privileged; efforts to support students financially, however, may not prove far-reaching enough to close gaps resulting from social class distinctions. According to Jack, “colleges lag in readying themselves for increasingly diverse student bodies, in part because they habitually get their new diversity from old sources.” His own research reveals that, from 2003 to 2009, nearly half of all lower-income African-Americans who had matriculated at prestigious schools had attended private high school. Programs like Prep for Prep and A Better Chance, which place lower-income students in affluent private schools, can ease the transition of African-Americans to college; these students have learned the social and cultural norms necessary to seize opportunities in environments defined by the economically advantaged.
African-Americans with a degree from private schools are dubbed the “privileged poor.” Although they receive excellent educations, their acquired cultural capital is more indicative of academic success than the name of a high school. By contrast, African-American graduates of distressed public high schools, the so-called “doubly disadvantaged,” typically enter college with little exposure to environments where wealth sets the cultural tone. Although experience allows the “doubly disadvantaged” to regain footing with “the privileged poor,” navigating the social sphere take time. As they struggle to understand the framework of their new world, the “doubly disadvantaged” lose access to social and academic networks.
To determine how class-based boundaries hinder assimilation at college, Jack interviewed over 100 “privileged poor” and “doubly disadvantaged” students at a “renowned university.” Jack emphasized the confidence of one interviewee, Ogun. Having escaped her troubled neighborhood to attend a predominantly white prep school, Ogun found the transition to college manageable. Because her high school required teachers to stay after hours, visiting a professor during office hours seemed natural. In her own words, Ogun felt “empowered to go talk to a professor and say, ‘I want to meet with you.’ [Her] school instilled in [her] that [she’s] allowed to do that and it’s actually [her] right.” When she struggled with a topic, Ogun had no qualms calling one instructor on his cellphone.
Alice, another student interviewed by Jack, however, faced unalloyed culture shock in her freshman year. At her public high school, students frequently skipped class, burned trashcans and engaged in brawls. She confessed that, because she’s “too intimidated or too afraid to go and talk to people,” her attendance at school-sponsored events is an anomaly. Her fear of college as an institution extends to professors; even when professors advise classes of their office hours, Alice questioned whether her presence is truly desired. If the “doubly disadvantaged” view professors as authority figures rather than facilitators, Jack notes, they shall lag behind their peers in cultural capital. One school official with whom Jack spoke admitted that the distribution of college awards is fueled by student-teacher relationships. “Students whom counselors don’t know, they’re just not in the mix,” the official commented. The benefits of learning to interact with persons in positions of power extend beyond accolades. Referencing a study conducted by Northwestern University, Jack explained that firms hire according to “cultural matching,” as well as skill. To gain entry to many higher-level professions, one must pass the “airport test.” For example, if stranded at an airport due to flight delay, a potential candidate should be able to converse at ease on topics of interest to a presumably upper-income co-worker.
To close the opportunity gaps at the university level, Jack indicates that legislators must first fashion policy to address “the entrenched structural inequalities that plague America’s forgotten neighborhoods and neglected public schools.” Patrick T. Sharkey, an associate professor at New York University, seems to confirm this view. He reports that the test scores for children of high poverty neighborhoods are significantly lower if a parent was raised in an impoverished area as well. To address the “multigenerational nature of inequality,” he says in a blog post, “the focus must move to durable urban policies.”
For the short-term, however, Jack encourages colleges to reexamine their current policies from a more nuanced lens. School should implement voluntary pre-orientation programs to guide low-income and minority students in their acclimatization. By allowing for constant contact among students and faculty, pre-orientation erodes social barriers. Keeping the dining halls open during spring break, schools can also ensure that low-income students unable to venture home can eat healthfully and are able to function at optimal levels. Such measures guard against the possibility that “elite colleges will continue to privilege the privileged while neglecting those not fortunate enough to gain exposure to the advantages that money … can buy.” •
