Advertisement

Between Two Fields: US Public Master’s Institutions — Striving for Prestige or Equity?

  • Jarrett B. WarshawEmail author
  • Jon McNaughtan
  • Matt DeMonbrun
Original Article

Conventional wisdom suggests that a field of striving compels US public master’s institutions (PMIs) to pursue prestige in the academic hierarchy. We posit that, due to their unique histories of democratizing college opportunity, PMIs face conflicting imperatives from two fields: an origin one of equity and another of striving. Our hypotheses are that the pursuit of prestige entails departing from an origin field and will widen stratification between and within institutions over time. Using longitudinal data on organizational characteristics and enrollment share of low-income students, descriptive results suggest a relatively stable position among PMIs and in serving students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Panel analyses offered here indicate that, all else equal, PMIs with higher admissions selectivity, more out-of-state students, higher institutional grant aid, stronger growth in graduate education, and more favorable state economic conditions enrolled fewer low-income students over time than did their peers. Yet marginal effects showed moderate changes rather than swings toward dramatically greater between- and within-institution stratification. We discuss implications for research on managing conflicting imperatives from multiple fields and for public policy that foregrounds and rewards equity.

Keywords

neo-institutional theory organizational change inequality and stratification low-income students college opportunity longitudinal analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York, NY, April 2018. We gratefully acknowledge the reviewers and editor of this journal for their helpful suggestions and comments, Ozan Jaquette for sharing data for this project, and Jim Hearn for informing our thinking about isomorphism and organizational fields.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bastedo, M.N. and Jaquette, O. (2011) Running in place: low-income students and the dynamics of higher education stratification, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33(3): 318–339.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, C.M., Jimenez, M. and Arrozal, C.A.N. (2018) Prestige or education: college teaching and rigor of courses in prestigious and non-prestigious institutions in the U.S., Higher Education, advance online publication July 27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0297-3.
  3. Cantwell, B. (2015) Are international students cash cows? Examining the relationship between new international undergraduate enrollments and institutional revenues at public colleges and universities in the U.S., Journal of International Students 5(4): 512–525.Google Scholar
  4. Cantwell, B. and Taylor, B.J. (2013) Global status, intra-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation: a time-dynamic tobit analysis of ARWU position among U.S. Universities, Minvera 51(2): 195–223.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, B.R. (1987) The academic life: small worlds, different worlds, Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  6. Delisle, J. (2017) The Pell grant proxy: a ubiquitous and flawed measure of low-income student enrollment. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
  7. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociologist Review 48(2): 147–160.Google Scholar
  8. Dunham, E.A. (1969) Colleges of the forgotten Americans: a profile of state colleges and regional universities, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Eckel, P.D. (2008) Mission diversity and the tension between prestige and effectiveness: an overview of US higher education, Higher Education Policy 21(2): 175–192.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrenberg, R.G., Rizzo, M.J. and Jakubson, G.H. (2003) Who bears the growing cost of science at Universities? NBER Working Paper no. 9627, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  11. Ehrenberg, R.G., Zhang, L. and Levin, J.M. (2006) Crafting a class: the trade-off between merit scholarships and enrolling lower-income students, Review of Higher Education 29(2): 195–212.Google Scholar
  12. Finnegan, D. E. (1991) Opportunity knocked: the origins of comprehensive colleges and universities. Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of Massachusetts at Boston.Google Scholar
  13. Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D. (2012) A theory of fields, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fryar, A.H. (2015) The comprehensive university: How it came to be and what it is now, in M. Schneider and K.C. Deane (eds). The university next door: What is a comprehensive university, Who does it educate, and can it survive?, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 19–42.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, S.K. and Veliz, D. (2014) Evincing the ratchet: a thematic analysis of the promotion and tenure guidelines at a striving university, Review of Higher Education 38(1): 105–132.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Harcleroad, F.F. and Ostar, A.W. (1987). Colleges and universities for change: America’s comprehensive public state colleges and universities, Washington, DC: AASCU Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hazelkorn, E. (2011) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world excellence, London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  19. Hearn, J.C. and Rosinger, K.O. (2014) Socioeconomic diversity in selective private colleges: an organizational analysis, Review of Higher Education 38(1): 71–104.Google Scholar
  20. Heller, D.E. (2002) Is merit-based student aid really trumping need-based aid?, Change, 34(2): 30–37.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, B.B. (2007). Teaching at the people’s university: an introduction to the state comprehensive university, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Hillman, N. (2016a) Geography of college opportunity: the case of education deserts, American Educational Research Journal 53(4): 987–1021.Google Scholar
  23. Hillman, N. (2016b) Why performance-based college funding doesn’t work. College completion series: Part Four. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Hoxby, C.M. (2009) The changing selectivity of American colleges, Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(4): 95–118.Google Scholar
  25. Hoxby, C.M. and Avery, C. (2012) The missing “one-offs”: the hidden supply of high-achieving, low income students. NBER Working Paper no. 18586. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  26. Jaquette, O., Curs, B.R. and 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.Google Scholar
  27. Jaquette, O. and 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, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 467–533.Google Scholar
  28. Kraatz, M.S. and Block, E.S. (2017) Institutional pluralism revisited, in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence and R.E. Meyer (eds). SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, Los Angeles: SAGE, pp. 532–557.Google Scholar
  29. Leslie, L.L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B.J. and Zhang, L. (2012) How do revenue variations affect expenditures within U.S. Research Universities?, Research in Higher Education 53(6), 614–639.Google Scholar
  30. Marginson, S. (2016) The dream is over: the crisis of Clark Kerr’s Californian idea of higher education, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. McClure, K.R. and Titus, M.A. (2018) Spending up the ranks: the relationship between striving for prestige and administrative expenditures at U.S. Public Research Universities, Journal of Higher Education 89(6): 961–987.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology 83(2): 340–363.Google Scholar
  33. Morphew, C.C. (2002) “A rose by any other name”: which colleges became universities, Review of Higher Education 25(2): 207–223.Google Scholar
  34. Morphew, C.C. (2009) Conceptualizing change in the institutional diversity of U.S. Colleges and Universities, Journal of Higher Education 80(3): 243–269.Google Scholar
  35. Morphew, C.C. and Huisman, J. (2002) Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift, Higher Education in Europe 27(4): 491–506.Google Scholar
  36. Ogren, C.A. (2005) The American state normal school: an instrument of great good, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  37. 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, Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 121–179.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Posselt, J.R., Jaquette, O., Bielby, R. and Bastedo, M.N. (2012) Access without equity: longitudinal analyses of institutional stratification by race and ethnicity, 1972–2004’, American Educational Research Journal 49(6): 1074–1111.Google Scholar
  40. Riesman, D. (1969) Commentary, in E.A. Dunham (ed.). Colleges of the forgotten Americans: a profile of state colleges and regional universities, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 167–178.Google Scholar
  41. Santos, J.L. (2007) Resource allocation in public research universities, Review of Higher Education 30(2): 125–144.Google Scholar
  42. Schnurman, M. (2018) North Texas finally has a top research university, so “bang the drum loudly” about UTD, Dallas Morning News, 27 July, https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/07/27/north-texas-finally-top-research-university-bang-drum-loudly-ut-dallas, accessed 5 November 2018.
  43. Selingo, J. (2015a) Opportunities for innovation: reimagining the next decade of higher education for public comprehensive universities, in M. Schneider and K. C. Deane (eds). The university next door: What is a comprehensive university, Who does it educate, and can it survive?, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 173–194.Google Scholar
  44. Selingo, J. (2015b) Regional public colleges–the “middle children of higher ed”–struggle to survive, Washington Post, 5 February, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/02/09/regional-public-colleges-the-middle-children-of-higher-ed-struggle-to-survive/, accessed 5 November 2018.
  45. Taylor, B.J., Barringer, S.N. and Warshaw, J.B. (2018) Affiliated non-profit organizations: strategic action and research universities, Journal of Higher Education 89(4): 422–452.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, B. and Morphew, C. (2017) Phil Knight and the public purposes of higher education, Change 49(2), 43–49.Google Scholar
  47. Titus, M.A., Vamosiu, A. and 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 118–159.Google Scholar
  49. US Census Bureau. (2016) Income and poverty in the United States: 2015. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html, accessed 30 May 2018.
  50. US Department of Education. (2016) 20152016 Federal Pell grant program end of year report, Washington, DC: US Department of Education, https://www2.ed.gov/finaid/prof/resources/data/pell-data.html, accessed 30 May 2018.
  51. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2015) 2015 Poverty Guidelines, Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines, accessed 30 May 2018.
  52. Warshaw, J.B., Henne-Ochoa, R.B. and Murray, J.L. (2017a) Generativity or reproduction of privilege? How campus context and parental involvement affects legacy students, Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry 2(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
  53. Warshaw, J.B., Toutkoushian, R.K. and Choi, H. (2017b) Does the reputation of a faculty member’s graduate programme and institution matter for labour market outcomes?, Journal of Education and Work 30(8): 793–812.Google Scholar
  54. Zhang, L. (2010) The use of panel data models in higher education policy studies, in J. Smart (ed). Higher education: handbook of theory and research Vol. 25, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 307–349.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership and Research MethodologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  2. 2.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  3. 3.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations