For decades, colleges have sought to increase economic equity in admissions. From waiving application fees to federal work-study to targeted recruitment, there has been a movement within higher education to level the playing field within its applicant pool.
Programs like federal work-study — an initiative in which students can work on-campus jobs to help cover their education expenses — diversify the means by which students can afford an ever-increasing tuition bill. Since the program was introduced as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, low-income students have comprised a growing portion of the college campuses.
But what happens when eliminating barriers of entry solidifies socioeconomic hierarchy on campus?
While federal work-study might seem like an option to help open doors to more students by increasing means of affordability, it creates a stark divide between students who have to “earn” a place on campus and those who don’t.
Whether we notice it or not, work-study can stratify a campus. Many work-study jobs on Boston University’s campus are service-based, meaning that some students work for, serve or wait on their peers — a physical manifestation of economic disparities that already characterize elite institutions.
These jobs also, on average, pay less per hour than similar jobs not linked to a work-study program, meaning students are compensated less for the work that may be needed for their enrollment.
Work-study also creates time constraints for lower-income students. Wealthier students can afford to do extracurriculars or unpaid internships without compensation because their spot at the university is not dependent on their labor, while students with a work-study responsibility may need to forgo career-oriented activities.
Work during college is beneficial — it can teach financial responsibility, life skills and time management — but it stratifies the time that students have for career-oriented, uncompensated work in relation to their socioeconomic status.
No matter how visible or pronounced these hierarchies are on a day-to-day basis, a divided campus has negative implications for all students — socially and academically.
A 2022 study from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that while campus diversity is increasing, students still tend to mainly interact within racially and socioeconomically homogenous cohorts.
The study found students who bridged the lines of social class and regularly diversified their interactions performed better academically. However, the diversity that college admissions teams strive for doesn’t always translate to inter-demographic social interactions.
Work-study, which subtly sorts students’ time based on their financial background, may limit their day-to-day cross-class interaction, therefore decreasing academic and social well-being among all students.
To make matters worse, even if a student is financially dependent on a work-study job, their employment might not be guaranteed.
At BU, students are responsible for finding and applying for work-study positions on their own within a limited and competitive on-campus job market. Regardless of a student’s eligibility for receiving a work-study award, if they can’t find a job, they don’t get the aid.
The lack of administrative assistance available for job searches leads to many students not receiving work-study positions at all — and speaks to the alarming fact that work-study students still take on much more debt than their non-participating peers.
A 2016 study from the Economics of Education Review found that work-study participants were 21% more likely to accumulate student loan debt than those who did not participate — even those from similar demographic backgrounds.
While work-study seems to be correlated to an already increased load of student debt for individual students, federal funds for the program are also allocated in a way that intentionally disparages low-income students.
Students at private, prestigious institutions are far more likely to receive work-study awards — with low-income students at private universities having an almost 50% chance of receiving an award, as opposed to a 5% chance for community college students from a similar economic background — despite the fact that low-income students are more likely to attend public universities or community colleges.
Because work-study funding favors more selective — and more expensive — universities, the federal funds allocated to aid upward mobility for low-income students are diverted towards the most exclusive institutions of higher education.
If work-study funds aren’t going to the communities that need them most, are unattainable for the students they are guaranteed for and exacerbate social hierarchy and homogeneousness on campus, then what’s preventing schools from getting rid of them all together?
Some already have.
Starting in 2022, Williams College cut all work requirements for students and matched them with equal and unconditional grants that students won’t need to repay with on-campus work. Davidson College and Swarthmore Colleges have adopted “no-loan policies,” preventing their students from accumulating debt by replacing loans with other scholarships.
Work-study might level the playing field, but it does nothing to ensure a fair game.
By confronting the issues with supposedly equitable initiatives, we can finally recognize the lasting impacts they have on a student body.
The effects of a stratified campus don’t dissipate when we cross the graduation stage.
This Editorial was written by Opinion Co-Editor Ada Sussman
