View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Field of Striving or Equity? Regional Public Universities and College Access

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Field of Striving or Equity? Regional Public Universities and College Access
Language: English
Authors: Warshaw, Jarrett B., DeMonbrun, Matt, McNaughtan, Jon
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. Sum 2020 (190):25-39.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Public Colleges, Universities, Access to Education, Equal Education, Undergraduate Students, Reputation, Enrollment, Low Income Students, Minority Group Students
DOI: 10.1002/he.20365
ISSN: 0271-0560
Abstract: Many regional public universities (RPUs) provide college access to diverse groups of undergraduate students and face pressures to pursue prestige in the academic hierarchy. Prior research posits that RPUs will strive for prestige because of status- and resource-based rewards that flow from increasing their admissions selectivity, research-intensity, and wealth. As this dominant perspective suggests, RPUs may erode historic missions of democratizing educational opportunity to emulate their more elite peers to improve their external ratings and rankings. This chapter draws on multiple indicators of equity to examine whether institutional enrollment data align with, or diverge from, the prestige-seeking assumptions about these institutions. Descriptive profiles indicate that most RPUs in this analysis have increased over time their enrollment of low-income and racially diverse groups of students. We discuss implications for adopting a more flexible perspective on RPUs to account for equity-based orientations in the sector and to inform responsive practices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1272957
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGhYQiHRQjSO0dCgbHwvX5LAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDB31LK8Fr_bZYDEIHgIBEICBmuuGYRlphVqfJ8VZCvqwDIpLRD6omkOteJ6YEPKQK1i8Twb-F0Y9ndOybFGnATGC4apZ27fng_BnjlYyi8OeY6hEyfw2bvcjzDrAlgrFdQjm_kFtSbn_xiiVZ3sqAyvXdQxujA-FIjXUW_SBqCt--AvMFAIzC4X9nKzwBUNiZBCxY9BUI5cLH6b5XuxHuK2upPgW2asPyBXi2mA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146607767;ndh01jun.20;2020Oct27.03:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146607767-1">A Field of Striving or Equity? Regional Public Universities and College Access </title> <p>Many regional public universities (RPUs) provide college access to diverse groups of undergraduate students and face pressures to pursue prestige in the academic hierarchy. Prior research posits that RPUs will strive for prestige because of status‐ and resource‐based rewards that flow from increasing their admissions selectivity, research‐intensity, and wealth. As this dominant perspective suggests, RPUs may erode historic missions of democratizing educational opportunity to emulate their more elite peers to improve their external ratings and rankings. This chapter draws on multiple indicators of equity to examine whether institutional enrollment data align with, or diverge from, the prestige‐seeking assumptions about these institutions. Descriptive profiles indicate that most RPUs in this analysis have increased over time their enrollment of low‐income and racially diverse groups of students. We discuss implications for adopting a more flexible perspective on RPUs to account for equity‐based orientations in the sector and to inform responsive practices.</p> <p>Many regional public universities (RPUs) provide college access to diverse groups of undergraduate students and face pressures to pursue prestige in the academic hierarchy.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] In relation to selective four‐year public flagship universities and elite private colleges, RPUs have enrolled over time disproportionate shares of low‐income, minority, first‐generation, adult, and military veteran students. They have unique historical roots in democratizing educational opportunity for American citizens, and these roots, as reflected in founding missions of public purpose and civic engagement, differentiate them from other four‐year institutions in the postsecondary system (Henderson, 2007; Orphan, 2018). Despite their origins as access‐ and teaching‐oriented campuses, RPUs have long‐been assumed to snake toward greater selectivity, research‐intensity, and wealth in order to climb in the Carnegie Classification and in ratings and rankings such as those featured in <emph>U.S. News & World Report</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]</p> <p>Researchers and analysts posit that RPUs have compelling reasons to engage in striving, defined as the pursuit of prestige in the academic hierarchy (O'Meara, 2007). They suggest that, on the whole, RPUs have a "muddled institutional character" (Clark, 1987, p. 12) as unsure "hybrids" (Toma, 2012, p. 125) that are squeezed between community colleges and larger research universities (Selingo, 2015b). Such a deficit‐based perspective, which attends to what institutions are <emph>not</emph>, depicts RPUs as having ambiguous missions and goals and thus unclear and undesirable organizational models and templates. These ambiguities of purpose and design, critics suggest, constrain external perceptions of RPUs' legitimacy and challenge the morale among administrators and faculty on these campuses. To this end, RPUs are considered especially susceptible to striving‐focused administrators and faculty who, through joint and semi‐autonomous efforts, reshape institutions to conform to their understandings of and felt‐needs to achieve legitimacy via prestige in the academy (Gonzales, 2014). As RPUs are situated in the middle of the academic hierarchy, prior literature and theory suggest their stakeholders may also embrace striving because it seems feasible to reach the next tier (O'Meara, 2007).</p> <p>In this chapter, we focus on RPUs' enrollment of low‐income students and of racially diverse groups of students. Our goal is two‐fold: (a) to encourage researchers, analysts, and stakeholders to refine understandings of RPUs as organizations and (b) to utilize RPUs to broaden ways of indicating equity in postsecondary organizational research and practice. We apply a flexible conceptualization of RPUs to examine numeric data on undergraduate enrollment composition and how that composition varies over time and by institutions' geographical locations, degrees of urbanicity, and designations as Land Grant and/or Minority‐Serving Institutions (MSI). To determine whether these data accord with or challenge striving‐based assumptions about RPUs, we draw on multiple organizational indicators of equity because there are numerous ways of operationalizing and studying it (Kezar & Posselt, 2020). As a policy‐relevant proxy for low‐income students, we utilize data on enrollment share of full‐time, first‐time undergraduate federal Pell Grant recipients. We also employ two different indicators of student racial diversity: the percentage of full‐time, first‐time undergraduate students of color and the diversity index for heterogeneity in undergraduate enrollment composition.</p> <p>Our chapter is organized as follows: in the next section, we discuss the forces of equity and striving that may influence RPUs and college access. Then we describe the data sources, indicators of equity, and cross‐sectional descriptive approach to analyzing data. Thereafter we highlight numeric results for each indicator of equity at RPUs, showing variation in the sector at different points in time and by geographical location, urbanicity, and designation as Land Grant and/or MSI. By way of conclusion, we discuss implications for public policies and institutional practices that reward equity.</p> <hd id="AN0146607767-2">The Forces of Equity and Striving</hd> <p>Theory and concepts of organizational fields offer a helpful way to account for RPUs' multiple, and potentially conflicting, institutional priorities. A field circumscribes the opportunities, constraints, and resource providers that shape organizational structures and processes (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Fields contain, and are reinforced by, powerful norms and "rules of the game" that compel isomorphism resulting in organizational homogeneity. For example, literature and theory on striving suggests that the access‐oriented, teaching‐focused, and modestly resourced RPUs will aim to mimic their more selective, research‐intensive, and wealthier peers above them in the academic hierarchy (Henderson, 2007). These emulative behaviors, constituting mimetic isomorphism, will make organizations become more alike than different over time to achieve taken‐for‐granted status as legitimate (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Morphew, 2009; see Chapter 1). As RPUs have distinctive histories of providing college access to diverse student groups, and as many continue to display these commitments, we suggest that RPUs are situated at the juncture of two fields. They straddle an origin field of equity based on college access (detailed next) and a second, more stratified one of striving for prestige. To succeed in one can be delegitimizing in the other and vice versa. This presents unique challenges for organizational leadership, management, and governance (Kraatz & Block, 2017).</p> <p>A field of equity indicates that RPUs may be relatively low in prestige but high in legitimacy as access‐ and teaching‐focused institutions.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>] Such a context suggests RPUs could seek to become the best, most effective equity‐serving institutions that emphasize: admissions and financial aid initiatives conducive to enrolling low‐income and racially diverse students and promoting social mobility (DeMonbrun, Warshaw, & McNaughtan, 2019; Warshaw, McNaughtan, & DeMonbrun, 2019); supportive teaching practices that enhance student learning (Campbell, Jimenez, & Arrozal, 2019; see Chapter 6); innovative approaches to academic advising and retention (Selingo, 2015a); programmatic expansion, despite market‐based pressures, of civic engagement as stewards of place (Orphan, 2018); and institutional memberships with associations and networks focused on advancing mission‐centered values and practices (Orphan & Miller, 2020). These and other equity‐based behaviors of RPUs may anchor them within "rules of the game" that contradict, and push beyond, those of the field of striving for prestige (becoming a selective, wealthy research university).</p> <p>There are well‐argued rationales, as noted earlier in this chapter, about why and how the more selective, research‐intensive, and better‐resourced RPUs may seek to advance in the academic hierarchy. In recent years, state funding and policy dynamics support the assumption that RPUs are compelled to become striving institutions. Many RPUs have been hit hard by retrenchment in state funding over time and by the 2008 market crash and ensuing economic malaise that has further constrained public coffers. As their state funding diminishes, RPUs can become, according to campus stakeholders, dismantled piece by piece because they rely on state appropriations to cover the majority of their operating costs (Hearn, Warshaw, & Ciarimboli, 2016; Titus, Vamosiu, & McClure, 2017). Additionally, many RPUs have their state funding tied to performance‐based metrics (see Chapter 1). These metrics tend to favor public flagships in resource allocations, as the public flagships have the capacity and type of student demand to secure or enhance their appropriations.</p> <p>The RPUs with higher selectivity and stronger resources could adapt to these state funding and policy conditions by seeking to emulate public flagships. To emulate them entails recruiting academically prepared students from top high schools throughout the United States that are typically located in whiter and higher‐income areas (Jaquette et al., 2016). These out‐of‐state, nonresident students are assessed higher tuition prices as compared to in‐state students. They may help institutions to optimize their academic and revenue profiles, net of incentives used to entice their enrollment (see Chapter 4). The need to secure resources critical for survival, then, is considered a prominent driver of striving‐focused behaviors.</p> <p>A core hypothesis about striving is that the pursuit of prestige will constrain equity (DeMonbrun et al., 2019; Jaquette, Curs, & Posselt, 2016; O'Meara, 2007; Warshaw et al., 2019; Zerquera, 2019). Striving constitutes a zero‐sum competition for prestige that heightens the disparities between lower‐status RPUs (access‐ and teaching‐oriented with modest resources) and their higher‐status counterparts (more selective, research‐focused, and wealthy). Meanwhile, striving also leads toward more stratification within campuses as striving institutions prioritize preferred candidates who tend to come from whiter and higher‐income areas nationally. The pursuit of prestige may constitute one option by which higher‐status RPUs reconcile tensions between a field of equity and a field of striving. Yet such an approach may result in widening asymmetries between and within these campuses, prompting more stratification in the postsecondary system (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019).</p> <hd id="AN0146607767-3">RPUs and Indicators of Equity</hd> <p>For this chapter, we employed a descriptive, cross‐sectional approach to analyze institutional data from 2006 and 2016 on RPUs' enrollment of low‐income students and racially diverse groups of students. There are different ways to classify RPUs (Fryar, 2015). We focused here on a subset of them: public master's comprehensive colleges and universities.</p> <p>We identified the RPUs for this chapter based on their 2016 Carnegie classification as public master's comprehensive institutions. Because of issues of aggregation in how numeric data were reported for branch campuses of some RPUs, we used a "parent‐child" collapsing procedure for accuracy in the descriptive analysis (Jaquette & Parra, 2014). Some RPUs were designated as Land Grants and/or MSIs. To identify and classify them in 2006 and 2016, we consulted lists of all Land Grants and also of all Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other postsecondary institutions eligible for Titles III‐ and V‐funding from the Department of Education. Specifically, we used publicly available enrollment data (discussed next) to code RPUs that enrolled at least 25% Hispanic/Latino students and were, as Hispanic‐Serving Institutions (HSIs), eligible for Titles III‐ and V‐funding. With that same dataset, we coded RPUs enrolling at least 10% Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students; these institutions were eligible for Titles III‐ and V‐funding as Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander‐Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs). We excluded from the sample institutions that were founded after 2006, closed prior to 2016, were private non‐profit or for‐profit institutions, and/or had missing data throughout the years of interest. This narrowed the final sample to 245 institutions.</p> <p>Our main data source was the National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which contained publicly available data on organizational characteristics that institutional officials reported each year. Separate files for each subcomponent of the IPEDS survey (finance, institutional characteristics, etc.) were downloaded for 2006 and 2016, allowing for a cross‐sectional perspective in two time periods and for the use of the most recent data to date. From these files we compiled data for indicators of equity and geographical area, urbanicity, and context as Land Grant and/or MSI. We imputed missing observations across indicators of interest by using the within‐institution average of non‐missing observations from the year prior to and after the missing one; there were fewer than 3% of observations in the sample that had missing data.</p> <p>For the first indicator of equity, we used an RPU's proportion of full‐time, first‐time undergraduate federal Pell Grant recipients as a proxy for the extent to which an institution served low‐income students. The federal Pell Grant program reaches millions of students each year and constitutes the largest national need‐based financial aid initiative. Most Pell recipients come from families whose income falls below the national median and poverty line. The Pell proxy is not a perfect measure of low‐income status, but is widely used for organizational analyses of socioeconomic diversity in higher education (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019).</p> <p>The second indicator of equity entails the enrollment of students of color, specifically the percentage of first‐time, full‐time undergraduate students identifying as Asian, African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Latino/a, or multiracial (two or more races). In order to examine further RPUs' student racial diversity, the third measure of equity used was a rating of heterogeneity in enrollment composition based on a standardized version of the <emph>U.S. News & World Report</emph> Diversity Index (Allen & Wolniak, 2019). This index is created by calculating the probability that two students will have the same race/ethnicity based on the proportion of students from each racial/ethnic category enrolled at the university. Subtracting the resulting probability from 1, then, indicates the probability that two students are different, which constitutes this diversity index.</p> <p>Many institutional research offices utilize the diversity index because the measure "is useful in that it compares an institution's racial/ethnic distribution with the most diverse distribution possible, but still in an easy‐to‐grasp methodology" (Allen & Wolniak, 2019, p. 25). It presents a valid way, then, to indicate racial diversity on campus and how it may change over time. The diversity index also adds some nuance and triangulation to our analysis. For example, an RPU may enroll a relatively high percentage of students of color driven by increases in a particular racial group such as Hispanic students; yet that same institution could feature a relatively moderate or low diversity index. The opposite scenario—a high index but low percentage of students of color—is also possible. To use two indicators of racial diversity is helpful for analytical and practical reasons, as it offers multiple, unique ways to assay the extent to which RPUs serve diverse groups of students at different points in time.</p> <p>A note of caution about the three indicators of equity is warranted. Each one is contingent on data on full‐time, first‐time undergraduate students. Many RPUs enhance equity by enrolling part‐time and adult learners who, for example, may be students of color. Additionally, part‐time and adult learners, while unique populations who are underserved at other four‐year institutions, may not be eligible for Pell awards. In relation to the data we present on racial diversity, this chapter emphasizes RPUs' enrollment of students of color as a whole; more nuance is needed in future research to unpack enrollment dynamics by specific subgroups of students and through different research methodologies. The analytical approach and data in this chapter may provide some helpful insights about, and from, RPUs, but does not necessarily capture the full range and extent of service to, or retrenchment from, college access and equity‐based orientations in the sector.</p> <hd id="AN0146607767-4">A Field‐Level View of RPUs: Resources and Enrollment Composition</hd> <p>Despite assumptions that RPUs, on the whole, are likely to become striving institutions (O'Meara, 2007), we present a number of results that suggest these campuses may be engaging the tension between equity and prestige in some positive ways on selected indicators of equity. For example, unlike public flagships that may be increasing their enrollment of affluent white students (Jaquette et al., 2016), we found that the average RPU has increased its percentage of Pell Grant recipients and students of color. Our findings also suggest that the average RPU has enrolled an increasingly diverse and heterogenous student body (Henderson, 2007; Fyar, 2015), as reflected in changes in a campus' diversity index. These findings, though far from definitive evidence, are suggestive of how the average RPU could be displaying college access‐related behaviors consistent with a field of equity rather than a field of striving (Kraatz & Block, 2017).</p> <p>To provide field‐level context on RPUs and their enrollment of low‐income students and racially diverse groups of students, we present below two scatterplots. Figure 2.1 shows the distribution of sampled RPUs by state appropriations per full‐time equivalent student (logged) and the percentage of enrolled first‐time, full‐time Federal Pell Grant recipients in 2006 and 2016. As the figure suggests: most RPUs in the analysis increased their enrollment percentages of Pell Grant recipients over time while also becoming more dispersed in the state funding variable. Despite the increasingly uneven disbursement and general de‐clustering over time of RPUs in relation to this measure of state resources, the majority of institutions seemed to enhance college access for students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20365-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20365-fig-0001.jpg" title="2.1 Distribution of 245 RPUs, by state appropriations per FTE student (logged) and percentage of full‐time, first‐time Federal Pell Grant recipients, 2006 and 2016." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Figure 2.2 presents the distribution of sampled RPUs in 2006 and 2016 by the state appropriations variable and the percentage of enrolled full‐time, first‐time students of color. It shows that most RPUs increased their proportion of students of color, even as they grew farther apart from one another in their logged state appropriations per FTE student. Taken together, the two figures suggest that most RPUs, whether they have received greater or fewer state‐based funds over time, do not appear to have abandoned missions of access and equity. They seem responsive, in their enrollment composition, to the increasing socioeconomic and racial diversity in higher education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019) and in the United State as a whole (Tavernise, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2019).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20365-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20365-fig-0002.jpg" title="2.2 Distribution of 245 RPUs, by state appropriations per FTE student (logged) and percentage of full‐time, first‐time students of color, 2006 and 2016." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0146607767-7">The Enrollment of Federal Pell Grant Recipients</hd> <p>Our prior research has used an RPU's proportion of full‐time, first‐time enrolled federal Pell Grant recipients as a proxy for serving low‐income students (Warshaw et al., 2019). In that analysis, we found that a number of predictors, including standardized test scores, admissions rate, student enrollment composition, and institutional grant aid and tuition price, were each associated with Pell recipient enrollment growth or decline at these institutions. For statistical reasons, the study focused on variables that changed over time. It did not examine the time‐invariant characteristics of these RPUs and how Pell enrollment was changing across some of these characteristics, such as geographic region, urbanicity, and Land Grant‐ and/or MSI‐status.</p> <p>Table 2.1 provides the breakdown for the percentage of full‐time, first‐time enrolled federal Pell Grant recipients at RPUs in 2006 and 2016 and by region, urbanicity, and Land Grant and/or MSI‐status. Notably, the percentage of Pell Grant recipients increased across all institutional subgroups in the last decade.</p> <p>2.1 TablePercentage of Pell Grant Recipients at RPUs, by Region, Urbanicity, and Institutional Context, 2006 and 2016</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Pell %</th><th align="center">N</th><th align="center">2006</th><th align="center">2016</th><th align="center">% Change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Region</td></tr><tr><td>New England</td><td>16</td><td>23.9%</td><td>37.2%</td><td>13.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Mid East</td><td>50</td><td>33.5%</td><td>45.0%</td><td>11.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Great Lakes</td><td>29</td><td>27.6%</td><td>40.1%</td><td>12.6%</td></tr><tr><td>Plains</td><td>27</td><td>29.0%</td><td>37.2%</td><td>8.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>66</td><td>40.3%</td><td>50.0%</td><td>9.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>22</td><td>40.4%</td><td>47.7%</td><td>7.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Rocky Mountains</td><td>9</td><td>27.4%</td><td>38.4%</td><td>11.0%</td></tr><tr><td>Far West</td><td>26</td><td>30.8%</td><td>45.9%</td><td>15.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Urbanicity</td></tr><tr><td>City</td><td>103</td><td>35.6%</td><td>47.7%</td><td>12.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Suburb</td><td>45</td><td>27.0%</td><td>39.9%</td><td>12.9%</td></tr><tr><td>Town</td><td>88</td><td>33.6%</td><td>42.1%</td><td>8.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>9</td><td>44.4%</td><td>52.6%</td><td>8.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Inst Context</td></tr><tr><td>Land grant</td><td>10</td><td>60.2%</td><td>69.6%</td><td>9.4%</td></tr><tr><td>HBCU</td><td>24</td><td>60.2%</td><td>72.5%</td><td>12.4%</td></tr><tr><td>MSI</td><td>54</td><td>39.6%</td><td>51.5%</td><td>11.9%</td></tr><tr><td>PWI</td><td>168</td><td>28.2%</td><td>38.3%</td><td>10.2%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>RPUs in the New England, Mid East, Great Lakes, Rocky Mountains, and Far West states experienced double‐digit growth in their relative Pell Grant recipient percentages in the last 10 years. The RPUs in the Plains, Southeast, and Southwest states followed closely in the higher single digits (7.4–9.7% growth). Similarly, the rates of Pell Grant recipient growth also changed significantly, with ∼12% growth in cities and suburban areas, and ∼8% growth in towns and rural settings. Finally, all institutional characteristics of Land Grant‐ and MSI‐status demonstrated 9–12% growth in these percentages over time. This finding was even consistent for those institutions already serving high percentages of Pell Grant recipients, such as Land Grants (from 60.2% to 69.6% Pell Grant recipients) and HBCUs (from 60.2% to 72.5% Pell Grant recipients).</p> <p>There has been a national increase over time in the number of students receiving Pell awards (any dollar amount), due in part to the 2008 worldwide market crash and global economic recession and to the legislative changes made to this federal aid program. RPUs, as data presented here suggest, have largely been responsive to these shifts in the economy and for students and families. They have expanded access in ways consistent with enrollment needs and also with behaviors suggestive of equity‐based missions and origins.</p> <hd id="AN0146607767-8">The Enrollment of Racially Diverse Students</hd> <p>In one study (DeMonbrun et al., 2019), we used the enrollment of students of color—the percentage of first‐time, full‐time undergraduate students identifying as Asian, African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Latino/a, or multiracial—to examine the striving‐related factors, if any, which shape equity and access at RPUs. We have begun to expand this work by considering an additional dependent variable to indicate equity and access in the sector: the diversity index (Allen & Wolniak, 2019). An examination of these two indicators of racial diversity across time‐invariant institutional characteristics was not included in that earlier analysis. We focus on these characteristics here.</p> <p>Table 2.2 provides the average percentage of enrolled full‐time, first‐time undergraduate students of color and the diversity index scores for RPUs in 2006 and 2016 by the selected time‐invariant institutional characteristics. Much like for the percentage of Pell Grant recipients, there were increases in both the percentage of students of color and the diversity index scores across all institutional subgroups in the last decade (except at HBCUs, which had a very small decline in their proportion of students of color), although these changes were quite disparate.</p> <p>2.2 TablePercentage of Students of Color and the Diversity Index at RPUs, 2006 and 2016</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th /><th align="center">Percentage of Students of Color</th><th align="center">Diversity Index</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="center">N</th><th align="center">2006</th><th align="center">2016</th><th align="center">% Change</th><th align="center">2006</th><th align="center">2016</th><th align="center">% Change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Region</td></tr><tr><td>New England</td><td>16</td><td>15.9%</td><td>26.5%</td><td>10.6%</td><td>38.0%</td><td>55.1%</td><td>17.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Mid East</td><td>50</td><td>35.1%</td><td>42.9%</td><td>7.8%</td><td>52.0%</td><td>62.3%</td><td>10.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Great Lakes</td><td>29</td><td>18.5%</td><td>25.1%</td><td>6.5%</td><td>34.0%</td><td>48.3%</td><td>14.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Plains</td><td>27</td><td>16.8%</td><td>18.8%</td><td>1.9%</td><td>42.0%</td><td>49.2%</td><td>7.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>66</td><td>40.1%</td><td>45.2%</td><td>5.1%</td><td>39.1%</td><td>49.6%</td><td>10.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>22</td><td>39.8%</td><td>51.2%</td><td>11.3%</td><td>56.9%</td><td>71.0%</td><td>14.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Rocky Mountains</td><td>9</td><td>24.1%</td><td>31.9%</td><td>7.7%</td><td>50.4%</td><td>62.6%</td><td>12.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Far West</td><td>26</td><td>43.3%</td><td>55.8%</td><td>12.5%</td><td>71.0%</td><td>78.2%</td><td>7.1%</td></tr><tr><td>Urbanicity</td></tr><tr><td>City</td><td>103</td><td>39.0%</td><td>46.8%</td><td>7.7%</td><td>52.3%</td><td>62.0%</td><td>9.7%</td></tr><tr><td>Suburb</td><td>45</td><td>31.6%</td><td>39.7%</td><td>8.2%</td><td>50.2%</td><td>61.4%</td><td>11.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Town</td><td>88</td><td>23.6%</td><td>30.0%</td><td>6.3%</td><td>39.2%</td><td>51.7%</td><td>12.5%</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td>9</td><td>36.8%</td><td>44.9%</td><td>8.1%</td><td>44.5%</td><td>54.7%</td><td>10.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Inst Context</td></tr><tr><td>Land grant</td><td>10</td><td>87.2%</td><td>87.7%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>27.9%</td><td>35.0%</td><td>7.1%</td></tr><tr><td>HBCU</td><td>24</td><td>89.3%</td><td>89.2%</td><td>‐0.1%</td><td>26.1%</td><td>35.9%</td><td>9.9%</td></tr><tr><td>MSI</td><td>54</td><td>49.4%</td><td>60.0%</td><td>10.5%</td><td>74.9%</td><td>80.3%</td><td>5.4%</td></tr><tr><td>PWI</td><td>168</td><td>19.3%</td><td>26.0%</td><td>6.7%</td><td>41.2%</td><td>53.9%</td><td>12.7%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Across RPUs in the Southeast, the average percentage of enrolled students of color increased by only 5.1%, while the diversity index increased by more than double this percentage (10.5%). RPUs in the Far West, on the other hand, experienced 12.5% growth in their relative percentage of enrolled students of color, with only a 7.1% growth in the diversity index. This is likely a result of the strikingly high averages for the diversity index in Far West states in 2006 (7.1%), leaving less capacity for growth in the last decade. Among the urbanicity categories, these changes were similar. The percentage of enrolled students of color saw single digit increases (6–8%), while the diversity index was mostly in the lower double‐digits (10–13%). For MSIs, this finding was flipped. While these institutions displayed increases in their proportional enrollment of students of color, the diversity index changes were much lower, suggesting that these institutions increased diversity in one racial group of students more so than in others.</p> <p>Overall, and as noted earlier in the chapter, these shifts match the increasing racial diversity in higher education and in the United States population as a whole. There are RPUs in geographic areas that may still not be seeing large shifts in the diversity of their regional demographics (such as in rural areas). However, these institutions are still experiencing increases, albeit modest gains, in both their enrollment of students of color and in their diversity indices.</p> <hd id="AN0146607767-9">Implications for Policy and Practice</hd> <p>The analysis presented in this chapter suggests a number of implications to consider for policy and practice at the federal, state, and institutional levels. First, our findings suggest that federal policymakers could help RPUs to expand their resources for serving college access and equity. Most RPUs in this analysis enrolled increasing percentages of Pell Grant recipients and students of color, as well as increased their diversity index scores. Yet these institutions varied widely, by 2016, in state‐based resources—becoming more dispersed than in previous eras. One example of a federal effort, which could focus on rewarding equity at RPUs, includes a potential expansion of funding opportunities tied to serving low‐income students and students of color. Said simply, the federal government could allocate more generous forms of support to RPUs that increasingly match, in their enrollment composition, the broader demographics of American citizens. Additionally, initiatives such as the National Science Foundation S‐STEM program, which provides scholarships for engineering students with strong financial need, could be adapted or spun‐off into a newer effort to support low‐income students in disciplines that RPUs offer. Such programs have the potential to influence positively the actions of these institutions toward equity, rather than mimicking their wealthier peers (Henderson, 2007), and they could help to improve the overall resources for RPUs to enhance student access and success.</p> <p>Second, given the proliferation of state performance‐based funding (PBF) policies in higher education, state legislatures could identify specific metrics encouraging institutions to support low‐income and racially diverse student populations. This study uses multiple indicators of equity based on enrollment composition. Using these metrics, and ascribing more weight to them in funding formulas, additional funding could be allocated to institutions that recruit and that retain and graduate higher proportions of these student groups. Such efforts may serve to re‐cluster RPUs toward higher levels of both state resources and college access (Figures 2.1 and 2.2).</p> <p>Another potential state‐policy focus entails funding the implementation of specific programs designated to support student success. These programs could include first‐generation college student orientations and mentorship through the first two years of college; institutional engagement with community‐based and student organizations focused on students of color; and innovative retention efforts centered on students at risk of stopping‐ or dropping‐out of college. With the rise in state postsecondary attainment agendas (Perna & Finney, 2014), RPUs are likely to become key contributors to policy efforts. Policymakers may thus do well to support and reward them for serving a disproportionate share of undergraduates in the four‐year sector, as well as for serving students whose diversity <emph>represents</emph> the racial composition and socioeconomic backgrounds of the state's overall population (Michigan Postsecondary Credential Attainment Work Group, 2015; Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2019). Our analysis suggests that many RPUs are at the center of this effort and could benefit from resource‐flows that match, and achieve equilibrium with, their access‐ and equity‐orientations (Titus et al., 2017).</p> <p>Finally, institutional officials could reconsider their institutional mission statements and strategic plans to seek alignment with institutional action that emphasizes supporting equity. Prior research on mission statements and strategic plans has indicated that many postsecondary institutions espouse values of diversity but do not always reflect those values in practice (McNaughtan et al., 2019; Morphew & Hartley, 2006). Our findings in this analysis suggest that most RPUs display enrollment characteristics associated with historic missions of public purpose; however, the data we have employed do not account for strategic intent. It is possible, then, that some RPUs are in "survival mode" given fluctuations in state funding and student demand and may thus recruit more diverse students by virtue of enrollment and resource needs. Such a perspective could mean that these RPUs are enhancing college access and appearing to serve equity yet are doing so without a deliberate focus on who these students are or what their economic situation might be. We posit that the alignment between strategic vision and institutional actions, such as focusing on <emph>intentional</emph> equity‐oriented service for the public good, is warranted. That alignment can only be accomplished through attentive, meaningful evaluation of institutional mission and critical adjustments to institutional strategic plans and actions.</p> <hd id="AN0146607767-10">Conclusion</hd> <p>Despite their characterization as prestige‐seeking, many RPUs in this analysis are associated with serving historic missions of access for low‐income students and racially diverse groups of students. From this perspective, these institutions have democratized postsecondary education for American citizens. Our results offer some descriptive evidence suggesting that these institutions have continued to serve racially and socioeconomically diverse populations in spite of the strong pressures to pursue prestige (O'Meara, 2007). Policy efforts to increase support for RPUs should, we believe, center on equity. That support is critical for helping them expand both their resources and commitments to college access.</p> <ref id="AN0146607767-11"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> RPUs may encounter trade‐offs between serving access and equity and pursuing prestige. Yet these seemingly divergent strategic priorities could overlap and not always be mutually exclusive. For example, some RPUs aim to increase their undergraduate enrollment across an array of different student populations in order to generate tuition and fee revenues to fund the costs associated with prestige‐seeking. It could also be possible that to provide access to prestige (a selective, well‐resourced research university) constitutes a form of equity. Even so, the line to walk is likely narrow and tenuous in balancing both sets of goals and can result in institutions' positioning in one arena over another (Kraatz & Block, [13]; Toma, [30]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> It can be challenging for striving institutions to increase institutional wealth. Many public institutions have modest endowments, though there are a few exceptions (Taylor & Cantwell, [27]). Additionally, prominent philanthropists and foundations give more generous donations to institutions that have robust levels of funding, selectivity, and prestige. The extent to which RPUs can enhance their endowments is thus limited. It may be apt, then, to say that striving‐inclined RPUs aim to accrue additional <emph>resources</emph> (tuition and fee revenues, contracts and grants, and the like). That said, to attain greater <emph>wealth</emph> may seldom be achieved but still remains, in our view, a core driver to emulate elite, prestigious institutions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Many RPUs feature educational practices that are supportive of student learning (Campbell et al., [2]) and social mobility (Orphan, [21]). As such, they can be cast as relatively low in prestige in the academic hierarchy yet also as strong and legitimate institutional exemplars for serving diverse groups of undergraduate students in the 4‐year sector.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0146607767-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Allen, D., & Wolniak, G. C. (2019). Exploring the effects of tuition increases on racial/ethnic diversity at public colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 60 (1), 18 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, C. M., Jimenez, M., & Arrozal, C. A. N. (2019). Prestige or education: College teaching and rigor of courses in prestigious and non‐prestigious institutions in the U.S. Higher Education, 77 (4), 717 – 738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ : The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> DeMonbrun, M., Warshaw, J. B., & McNaughtan, J. (2019). Does striving for prestige impede access? Master's comprehensive institutions and the enrollment of underrepresented minorities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociologist Review, 48, 147 – 160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Fryar, A. H. (2015). The comprehensive university: How it came to be and what it is now. In M. Schneider & K. C. Deane (Eds.), The university next door: What is a comprehensive university, who does it educate, and can it survive? (pp. 19 – 42). New York : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu's theory of practice. Journal of Higher Education, 85 (2), 193 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hearn, J. C., Warshaw, J. B., & Ciarimboli, E. B. (2016). Privatization and accountability trends and policies in U.S. public higher education. Education and Science, 41 (184), 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Henderson, B. B. (2007). Teaching at the people's university: An introduction to the state comprehensive university. San Francisco, CA : Jossey Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O., Curs, B. R., & Posselt, J. R. (2016). Tuition rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollment growth and the socioeconomic and racial composition of public research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 87 (5), 635 – 673.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 467 – 533). Dordrecht : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar, A., & Posselt, J. (Eds.) (2020). Higher education administration for social justice and equity: Critical perspectives for leadership. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2017). Institutional pluralism revisited. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 532 – 557). Los Angeles, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNaughtan, J., Louis, S., Garcia, H., & McNaughtan, E. D. (2019). An institutional north star: The role of values in presidential communication and decision making. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41 (2), 153 – 171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340 – 363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morphew, C. C. (2009). Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Higher Education, 80 (3), 243 – 269.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77 (3), 456 – 471.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara, K. A. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXII, pp. 121 – 179). Heidelberg, The Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michigan Postsecondary Credential Attainment Work Group. (2015). Reaching for opportunity: An action plan to increase Michigan's postsecondary credential attainment. Lansing, MI : John Austen. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/reaching-for-opportunity-2015.pdf">www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/reaching-for-opportunity-2015.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orphan, C. M. (2018). Public purpose under pressure: Examining the effects of neoliberal public policy on the missions of regional comprehensive universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22 (2), 59 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orphan, C. M., & Miller, G. N. S. (2020). The company regional comprehensive universities desire to keep: Choosing institutional membership associations. Journal of Higher Education, 91 (2), 300 – 325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perna, L. W., & Finney, J. E. (2014). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selingo, J. (2015a). Opportunities for innovation: Reimagining the next decade of higher education for public comprehensive universities. In M. Schneider & K. C. Deane (Eds.), The university next door: What is a comprehensive university, who does it educate, and can it survive? (pp. 173 – 194). New York : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selingo, J. (2015b). Regional public colleges–the "middle children of higher ed"–struggle to survive. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/02/09/regional-public-colleges-the-middle-children-of-higher-ed-struggle-to-survive/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/02/09/regional-public-colleges-the-middle-children-of-higher-ed-struggle-to-survive/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavernise, S. (2018, November 22). Why the announcement of a looming white minority makes demographers nervous. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/us/white-americans-minority-population.html">www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/us/white-americans-minority-population.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2019). Unequal higher education: Wealth, status, and student opportunity. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2019). 60x30TX progress report. Austin, TX : Retrieved from <ulink href="http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/60x30tx-progress-report-july-2019/">http://reportcenter.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/data/60x30tx-progress-report-july-2019/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titus, M. A., Vamosiu, A., & McClure, K. R. (2017). Are public master's institutions cost efficient? A stochastic frontier and spatial analysis. Research in Higher Education, 58 (5), 469 – 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toma, J. D. (2012). Institutional strategy: Positioning for prestige. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era (pp. 118 – 159). Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Census Bureau. (2019). Historical poverty tables: People and families – 1959 to 2018. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html">www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., McNaughtan, J., & DeMonbrun, M. (2019). Between two fields: US public master's institutions—Striving for prestige or equity? Higher education policy (pp. 1 – 26). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00137-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zerquera, D. D. (2019). The problem with the prestige pursuit: The effects of striving on access for Black and Latino students at urban‐serving research universities. Review of Higher Education, 42 (5), 393 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jarrett B. Warshaw; Matt DeMonbrun and Jon McNaughtan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jarrett B. Warshaw is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Florida Atlantic University.</p> <p>Matt DeMonbrun is Associate Director and Senior Statistician of the Enrollment Management Research Group at Southern Methodist University.</p> <p>Jon McNaughtan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Psychology and Leadership at Texas Tech University.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1272957
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Field of Striving or Equity? Regional Public Universities and College Access
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Warshaw%2C+Jarrett+B%2E%22">Warshaw, Jarrett B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22DeMonbrun%2C+Matt%22">DeMonbrun, Matt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McNaughtan%2C+Jon%22">McNaughtan, Jon</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Sum 2020 (190):25-39.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reputation%22">Reputation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrollment%22">Enrollment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income+Students%22">Low Income Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Minority+Group+Students%22">Minority Group Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20365
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Many regional public universities (RPUs) provide college access to diverse groups of undergraduate students and face pressures to pursue prestige in the academic hierarchy. Prior research posits that RPUs will strive for prestige because of status- and resource-based rewards that flow from increasing their admissions selectivity, research-intensity, and wealth. As this dominant perspective suggests, RPUs may erode historic missions of democratizing educational opportunity to emulate their more elite peers to improve their external ratings and rankings. This chapter draws on multiple indicators of equity to examine whether institutional enrollment data align with, or diverge from, the prestige-seeking assumptions about these institutions. Descriptive profiles indicate that most RPUs in this analysis have increased over time their enrollment of low-income and racially diverse groups of students. We discuss implications for adopting a more flexible perspective on RPUs to account for equity-based orientations in the sector and to inform responsive practices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1272957
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1272957
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20365
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 25
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reputation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Enrollment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Minority Group Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Field of Striving or Equity? Regional Public Universities and College Access
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Warshaw, Jarrett B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: DeMonbrun, Matt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McNaughtan, Jon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 190
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1