Book Review: "Can College Level the Playing Field? Higher Education in an Unequal Society"
This article is part of NASFAA's occasional book review series, where members share their reflections on books, published within the past five years, on higher education themes of interest to financial aid professionals. The opinions offered and statements made do not imply endorsement by NASFAA or the authors' employers and do not guarantee the accuracy of information presented. Would you like to suggest a book for a future review? Email us at [email protected] with your recommendation.
Education improves lives. Or does it? That is the question Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson attempt to answer in their book “Can College Level the Playing Field? Higher Education in an Unequal Society.”
Baum and McPherson explore the current state of social inequality in America, delving into its expression before, during, and after college. Their review seeks to empirically define inequality, describe and document its manifestations, and illustrate how higher education both mitigates and exacerbates generational disparities. They suggest programs and policies institutions and governments can implement but ultimately contend that, for effective change, efforts must address disparities both before and after college to curtail inequality’s compounding effects, minimize injustice, and democratize education.
Reviewed by Alison Zillmer, financial aid advisor, Ferris State University
Baum and McPherson devote the first two-thirds of the book to exploring inequalities that abound in our country and employ a variety of powerful statistics to substantiate their claims. They cite research findings from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Urban Institute, and the National Bureau of Economic Research demonstrating that in 2016, the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned a massive 40% of the share of wealth compared to those near the bottom of the distribution who, on average, were $1,000 in debt. What’s more, their research found that the wealth of white families was 4.8 times that of Hispanic families and 6.6 times that of Black families. Even for Black workers with a bachelor’s degree, median earnings were $14,000 less than their white counterparts.
However, the authors go beyond just listing numbers like those mentioned above that show gaps in dollar amounts of income/wealth; they present metrics that capture what inequality truly means. For example, the data they include regarding family expenditures on enrichment tools and activities (e.g., music lessons, computers, trips, sports equipment), makes up 3% of the budget for low-income families compared to 9% for families with the highest incomes. When those percentages are calculated, the lowest-income families spend, on average, $120 on sports for the year, while the highest-income families spend $990. Statistics regarding differences in incomes certainly make an impact. Still, most of us can quickly visualize the vastly different experiences and outcomes that would result from $120 versus $900 spent on sports for the year.
This is just one example, and such statistics abound in the book, serving as the hearty meat and potatoes of the authors’ argument. Above all, Baum and McPherson expertly wield this data to humanize inequality for readers, and this is the aspect of their argument that most moved me. Readers are left with a solidified understanding of the reality that “some children grow up in nice houses on tree-lined streets with attentive adults near well-equipped and safe parks, libraries, and good schools,“ while others are limited to “economically depressed neighborhoods with boarded up buildings, unsanitary conditions, substantial criminal activity, scarce and problematic adult supervision, and failing schools” (p. 82), and these drastic differences repeat in college and the workforce. More simply put, their humanizing presentation of inequality through valid evidence fundamentally establishes their position that interventions must begin early and continue throughout the lifespan.
Simultaneously, however, their analysis of inequality in America is very broad. They analyze inequality in enrollment, completion, type of institution attended, housing, neighborhoods, pre-kindergarten experiences, K-12 schools, health care, labor markets, labor market policies, returns on investments, and more, often comparing the U.S. to other developed nations, and including data and statistics for each area. Though the scope and depth of their arguments and supporting data demonstrate the pervasiveness of inequality, it becomes easy to lose track of the role of higher education institutions in all this. The volume of data may create a sense of disjointedness for some readers; ultimately, I found myself wondering whether this is a book about what we can achieve or what we cannot.
That is not to say the authors merely list disadvantages certain groups face. On the contrary, they provide both institutional and policy-level direction. These include recruiting and enrolling more students from low-/moderate-income backgrounds (especially at elite institutions) and improving in-school support systems for struggling students, among other recommendations. Policy-wise, I was most intrigued by their argument against free community college tuition, and I encourage those with the time and interest to pick up Can College Level the Playing Field? to explore the authors’ suggested solutions.
Still, many of these solutions are tied to efforts before students reach college. Although the book provides a good reminder of the realities many of our students face, it may be most appropriate for an audience working principally with primary and secondary students.
To circle back to the book’s fundamental question, higher education can — and cannot — level the playing field. Ultimately, it appears to me, and I believe Baum and McPherson would agree, that higher education is the playing field — or at least one of the many — where huge disparities are both mitigated and exacerbated. Rather than education itself serving as an “inequality machine” (p. 11), a term coined by one expert mentioned in the text, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I found the common thread was not education per se but systemic racism and the tendency of affluent groups to prioritize and protect self-involved interests and advantages rather than the ultimate good for all citizens. This system prevents individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds from reaching levels of relative equality starting well before birth.
Education is not an inequality machine — society is. Nor is education the ultimate solution to creating a just society. Narrow solutions to inequality in higher education will not reduce or eliminate the heartbreaking conditions in which so many Americans live. Directions for future research and literature should include expansion on comprehensive policy that could garner bipartisan support. Until both affluent and underprivileged Americans agree to undertake a holistic approach to reducing inequality, the playing field, education included, will stay the same.
“Can College Level the Playing Field? Higher Education in an Unequal Society,” by Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson, Princeton University Press, May 17, 2022, pp. 264.
***
Alison Zillmer is a financial aid advisor at Ferris State University. She has worked in a variety of public service roles, including a two-year volunteer assignment in Nicaragua with the U.S. Peace Corps, and she served as a secondary English Language Arts instructor before transitioning to higher education. She holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology, English Language and Literature, and Spanish Language and literature and a graduate certificate in curriculum and instruction, and she is currently working on her master’s degree in career and technical education. Alison treasures a good view accompanied by a hot beverage, a book, and her cat.
Publication Date: 3/18/2025
You must be logged in to comment on this page.