Policy Brief: Minority-Serving Institutions
Throughout US history, various agencies and initiatives have been implemented as a result of providing access to opportunity and equity towards populations that have been historically marginalized due to race and social identity. Because minority students are more likely to not attend college immediately after high school, the creation of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to provide access to higher education to historically underrepresented groups has been one of the most significant implementations within the nation’s social landscape. For instance, Hispanic-serving institutions continue to be critical for Hispanics to acquire a postsecondary education (Flores & Park, 2013), and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) provide an option for Black students who may want to pursue a college experience that develops awareness of their culture and roots (Nuñez & Bowers, 2011).
While HBCUs have educated Black students and produced leaders in government, business, entertainment, and academia, evidence has shown that HBCUs have been increasingly ineffective in providing a better quality of services to Black students, when compared to predominantly white institutions (PWIs) (Fryer & Greenstone, 2010). This lack of quality can be credited to factors such as limited access to public funding and lower standards of student selectivity.
Today, there are more than 100 HBCUs in the United States. The consequences of attendance do not favorably support the number of HBCUs that exist. How can HBCUs continue to exist in the market wherein they are able to still receive adequate funding and produce favorable graduation and student wage outcomes? Perhaps the answer is to decrease the number of HBCUs overall and to create a tiered system with explicit program offerings similar to the one implemented by the University of California system.
Among all HBCUs, there are a handful that are considered to be the most elite: Morehouse College, Xavier University, Spelman College, and Howard University (Fryer & Greenstone, 2010). The rest of the HBCU market is saturated with schools varying in quality and favorability, and they are all vying against each other for funding, students, and faculty -- resources that are already scarce in the first place. Having several HBCUs formally merge together would lower the overall number of institutions competing to receive public funding and resources. Furthermore, if HBCUs designate specializations among themselves regarding which programs and degrees each of them offers, this would also funnel students directly into specific academic programs. For example, an institution might only offer degrees in the STEM field, while another might only confer associate’s degrees, and so on.
Several arguments against this “merge and specialize” system among HBCUs may arise. One example is the effect on administrative implications such as reassigning university leadership, redefining accreditation standards, and re-establishing tuition fees. To address this, the creation of a tiered system may be helpful to provide students with several options of institutions at varying levels that are based on factors such as cost and selectivity. Another argument might be the dilution of the overarching purpose of HBCUs, which is essentially to increase access to higher education. This is a valid point; however, in order to thrive and truly serve their purpose, HBCUs must adapt to the landscape as defined by students and outcomes and provide not just access alone, but also quality access.
Specialization of offerings within institutions would potentially make the dissemination and interpretation of information at the college application stage less complicated for both students and their parents. This would hopefully lead to a higher quality of instruction, producing highly skilled and qualified graduates within their respective fields who would then be rewarded with competitive wages, and thereby elevating the reputation and return on attending HBCUs.
While the “merge and specialize” approach may seem herculean, it is imperative that structure and policy regarding HBCUs be reexamined to ensure that these institutions are fulfilling their mission and truly benefiting the populations they are meant to serve.
----------------
Flores, S. M., & Park, T. J. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and college success: Examining the continued
significance of the Minority-Serving Institution. Educational Researcher, 42, 115-128.
Fryer, R. G. & Greenstone, M. (2010). The changing consequences of attending Historically Black Colleges and Universities. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1), 116-148.
Nuñez, A.-M., & Bowers, A. J. (2011). Exploring what leads high school students to enroll in Hispanic-Serving Institutions: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1286-1313.