It’s been less than 48 hours since the most elite colleges and universities in the country made their admissions decisions available to prospective applicants, and already stories are popping up about record low admission rates. As usual, the figures are minuscule: Harvard took just 7.1 percent of its applicants, Columbia 8.7 percent. By contrast, Dartmouth College, with a 13 percent acceptance rate, may as well have just thrown its doors wide open. 

It’s not surprising to see record-low acceptance rates given the surge of applications over the past year, but looking at overall figures fails to answer important questions such as how many of those seven accepted students out of every 100 applicants comes from a low-income family? (For that matter, how many of those rejected 93 do as well?)

These are important questions, especially given the highly trumpeted recent decisions by a number of colleges to eliminate all loans for students that meet certain income requirements. Some of these policies are sensible, such as Washington University in St. Louis’s elimination of loans for families making less than $60,000. Others, such as Harvard’s dramatically slashing costs for families making up to $180,000, are deeply flawed. 

Setting aside the issue of whether these policies will lead to an increase in the socioeconomic diversity of America’s elite campuses, it is worth considering some potentially negative ramifications that could arise if other, less wealthy schools start down the no-loans path.

The problem, as laid out in an excellent piece in Inside  Higher Ed concerns what would happen if schools that are need aware (meaning they factor the applicant’s income into at least some admissions decisions) start eliminating loans. Under this hypothetical situation, a school might offer spots to fewer low-income applicants because each one is more costly (a $40,000-plus scholarship versus maybe half that amount and loans). This would result in an outcome where moves designed to cut costs for poorer applicants led to fewer low-income students accepted. 

While the Inside Higher Ed example is crucial for considering how no-loans policies work within the larger sphere of postsecondary education, it is important to offer a few caveats and considerations. First, it is possible for a school to have generous aid, not be need-blind and still have good socioeconomic diversity. The perfect example of this is Smith College, an all women’s school in Northampton, Mass. Through both its Ada Comstock Scholars Program and a general institutional commitment, the school has succeeded in putting together a student body that has the best diversity among the richest colleges and universities — 33 percent of Smith’s students come from families with incomes below $60,000, 19 percentage points above Harvard’s mark.  

While Smith has not eliminated loans for its students, its experience does show that institutional generosity need not hamper socioeconomic diversity — provided a school is willing to make a strong and concerted effort to admitting low-income students. 

It’s also important to consider the combination of no loans and being need aware in the context of affirmative action. If more and more court cases and state laws continue to side against admissions decisions based on race, then it is likely that income status will become the next criteria for achieving diversity. In this case, colleges would consider income anyway and the issue would become if they guaranteed to meet 100 percent of demonstrated need.

Two Recommendations

From a mere equity standpoint it is important that all colleges, and especially those considering going no loans, commit to a need blind admissions policy. As the numbers at elite schools demonstrate, it is hard enough to get into college these days, the least universities can do is guarantee that the reason the student did not get in was completely unrelated to their ability to pay. 

Second, it is time for colleges to begin doing a better job reporting the socioeconomic diversity of their campuses. Schools are more than happy to trumpet statistics on racial diversity, but data on family income is practically non-existent. The Web site economicdiversity.org, one of the best sites for institutional data, is only able to extrapolate about the low-income makeup of colleges using the income of financial aid applicants and recipients of Pell Grants, which generally go to students from families making under $40,000 a year. Therefore, all schools should be required to report both the average income of their admitted students and the breakdown within income quintiles.

These two changes won’t fix all the problems of access and equity, but they will ensure that when those gaudy admission figures come out in the future we will know for sure that all students, regardless of income, got a fair shot, and we shall see just whether the wealthiest schools are elite, or just for elites.