Academic Oklahomas

In a recent article on "The Concentration of Scholarship Funds and Its Implications for Education," John L. Holland, Research Director of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation, claimed that the concentrated wealth and "narrow talent-searching" of the fifty most wealthy American universities has stifled student creativity and the quality of other institutions. The article raises questions that demand consideration: scholarship funds are scarce at most schools and methods of awarding them often favor those in high economic groups and with good grades. But the article contributes little to evaluating or solving these problems because of its imprecise arguments and its belligerent assignment of blame to these fifty "prestigious" universities.

Holland argues three points: first, the fifty universities that control half of the nation's scholarship funds are depriving less wealthy institutions of student and faculty talent and of eminent graduates, an important means of building prestige. Geographic representation, he claims, results in an "intellectual denuding of many areas" and, in the end, "less prestigious institutions decline, or at best hold their own."

Secondly, since more students from the upper brackets apply to the richest universities, they receive more funds than those from lower income groups in less wealthy schools. That many poor students attend only because of scholarships he views as a "dubious generalization." Finally, he denounces the use of high school grades and aptitude tests in awarding grants as a "search for good grade-getters" that has little relation to creativity, originality or postcollegiate success.

Attracting endowment and talent is difficult for a little-known school with constantly rising costs. But Holland treats this problem more as a conspiracy than as an obvious, though distinctly unfortunate, fact. The very small, new or specialized institutions would naturally not have the endowment of others; and, in effect, most have scholarships for all in the form of low tuition.

The wide range of activities in the fifty universities makes comparison of their available number (3 per cent) with the total figure of institutions misleading. While much talent does pass by local schools for the wealthier ones, it does not do so because of any devious recruiting by several academic Oklahomas. Holland states that need analysis and standardized stipends "cement" the concentration of talent; yet this suggestion that all schools should bid for talent in a scholarship market-place would make a student's choice of college a narrowly financial affair.

Holland's claim of impossible competition for talent and his assertion that admissions procedures are eliminating creative students contradict one another. If, as he claims, there is little relation between postcollegiate success and test scores, then the wealthiest colleges that, he says, rely upon these figures could hardly be denying the poorer schools potentially eminent graduates. Admissions procedures that eliminate the creative student are hardly unique to this group of universities, but Holland has chosen to level these unrelated charges solely against them. Over-emphasis on preparation is a prevalent evil, but it has nothing to do with concentration of scholarship funds.

The claim that scholarship students come largely from upper-middle income brackets is also quite valid, as the Admissions Office here is so keenly aware. But Holland uses only the word "prestigious" to show the causes of this trend; he uses the word in the different senses of fame, popularity and high quality and thus gives a muddled analysis of the motivations of applicants and the relation between their social status and preparation.

To say that prestige is the main reason for the high economic level of scholarship students is to ignore the fact that, as Richard King, Assistant Director of Admissions and Scholarships, put it, "performance in school, on tests, in activities is directly related to the socio-economic status of the parents." The poor student is less likely to apply and often cannot compete well "on paper" with his better prepared and richer rival. Institutions such as Harvard and Yale have taken the lead to reverse this trend, but probably only a massive and costly publicity campaign could increase interest in such colleges among the lower income group.

The best ideas of this article are the suggestions for better criteria for awards. He urges greater experimentation in selection (presumably similar to Harvard's "diamonds-in-the-rough"), and greater attention to individual projects, original thought and interpretive ability. Studies of the kinds of students recommended by various secondary schools could make grades more reliable. But the belligerence and muddled thinking of this article will not help these ideas gain acceptance. Conspiracy theories provide an easy object of blame, but too often they are unreal.