In a recent article from the Education Issue of The New York Times Magazine, “The Top U.S. Colleges With the Greatest Economic Diversity,” Oberlin College places second to last on the College Access Index, which ranks “the country’s most selective colleges in order of economic diversity,” measured by the percentage of first-year students who received Pell Grants in the 2020–2021 academic year.

Pell Grants are a type of federal student aid given to students who display “exceptional financial need” to help subsidize the cost of higher education. Unlike federal student loans, Pell Grants, which do not exceed $7,395 for this academic year, do not need to be paid back after the student graduates. The other institutions ranked among Oberlin, with only eight percent of the first-year class receiving Pell Grants, include Fairfield University, Tulane University, and Bates College, all of which are private institutions with exceptionally high tuition costs and small, selective student enrollment practices. The article also shows the percentage change in first-year recipients between 2010 and 2020: Oberlin decreased by two percent. Meanwhile, Oberlin’s endowment per student — another statistic listed within the report — is almost $200,000 more than the second-highest endowment per student of the three other colleges. These rankings were determined through an annual report from the Department of Education. While this ranking does not present definitive evidence that a college isn’t admitting low income students, to have received such a low ranking should be a wake-up call to Oberlin’s administration. 

Another reality is that Oberlin has a very high tuition cost at $63,700 for the 2023–2024 academic year. Additional fees total the yearly cost at $83,588. These high costs suggest that the Oberlin student body is generally well off. A The Upshot analysis from The New York Times reported that around 70 percent of Oberlin students in the class of 2013 come from families in the top 20 percent of income earners, while only two percent of Oberlin students had a family income of $20,000 or less. While these statistics are from 10 years ago, the ranking published in early September showed a two percent decrease in Pell Grant first-year recipients since 2010 which means that it’s possible this percentage of low income students is even lower now. And while many students receive merit scholarships and financial aid, these numbers as well as the data released about the amount of first-years who receive Pell Grants may deter low-income students from even applying for admission. 

The biggest reality check arises when comparing Oberlin to Berea College, another college ranked on this table. Berea College was founded 22 years after Oberlin and on similar principles, being the first college to admit women and Black students in the South. Yet Berea is ranked first in Pell Grant recipients, with 94 percent of students receiving one. While Berea specifically admits students who have demonstrated financial aid, the contrast is stark.  

The recent Supreme Court decision to end affirmative action in college admissions may exacerbate this trend in the coming years. The removal of affirmative action can potentially cause certain grants or scholarships to be less accessible to students of color, which affects Oberlin’s economic diversity as well as racial diversity. Even though Pell Grants are open to any and all students that need them, because colleges can no longer accept students on the basis of race, low-income students of color have less access to an affordable education. Within the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, general legal principles related to Pell Grants say that laws prohibit contractors and subcontractors from discrimination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, disability, and protected veteran status. However, even though these laws are still in place, there’s still a question of whether they will remain accessible to low-income students of color. These students are not being put in high priority anymore. 

Oberlin, the oldest coeducational college in the country as well as the first private institution to accept Black students, has been at the forefront of social justice issues since its conception. The College itself advertises this culture and history. “With its longstanding commitments to access, diversity, and inclusion, Oberlin is the perfect laboratory in which to study and design the world you want.” The idea that Oberlin might be excluding, or at the very least, not including, lower income students in their admissions decisions directly contradicts this statement. In light of this recent ranking, the Editorial Board must ask, who has access to “this laboratory?” Who gets to “design the world” they want? Meanwhile, discussions of class consciousness remain ingrained in Oberlin’s campus culture as students make an effort to acknowledge and learn about their biases and privileges in and out of the classroom. If Oberlin is not doing its part to make sure that its education is accessible to low-income students, how productive can these conversations actually be? 

Oberlin, according to the Office of Financial Aid, meets “100 percent of demonstrated financial need making an Oberlin education accessible to students of all financial backgrounds.” This does not mean that the College accepts students of all financial backgrounds, especially those who need financial assistance to afford to attend Oberlin. The College should not claim to be committed to diversity, access, and inclusion if they are not also committed to increasing the economic diversity of our campus community. As many have said before, Oberlin cannot continue to live in and embrace its past when it is not implementing or upholding these values in real time.

Editorials are the responsibility of the Review Editorial Board — the Editors-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Opinions Editors — and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the Review.