{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02498530276308054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001763668430335097, 'mean_word_length': 5.313543599257885, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Applying Economics to Institutional Research (review)

Social stratification is the dark side of the human capital argument. Those who invest (or whose parents invest) in higher education will receive higher returns than those who do not; and as sociologists (although not human “capitalists”) note, these returns are structured less by merit than by class, race, and gender. The only author who puts forth a theory of the state is Fazal Rizvi. He offers a neoliberal theory of the state that explains, à la Bowles and Gintis, that the idea of justice has been reduced to property rights rather than personal rights. However, Rizvi’s theoretical explanation stands alone. Other authors do not incorporate it. St. John draws on Rawls’s concept of justice but does not tell us how Rawls’s ideas articulate with a theory of the state that would explain the patterns of federal, state, and financial aid policy that at least four authors in this volume (St. John, Priest, Hossler, and Heller) think unfortunate in terms of access. Rather, the authors invoke ideas of the public good that no longer fit well with policy patterns at the level of the several states and the federal government. Until the power of the prevailing policy patterns—which foster privatization, commercialization and educational rights as property rights—are understood theoretically, I am not sure that more money will foster equity even if it fosters greater access. As Gary Rhoades and I note in Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education (2004) middleand uppermiddle-class parents and students are not unhappy with the “academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime” because it allows them to buy opportunity for themselves/their children in an increasingly competitive and unstable global economy. Although the authors define privatization as turning low-tuition, state-subsidized institutions into colleges and universities dependent on tuition revenue, in fact, roughly 85% of the money is still public—federal financial student aid, ranging from Pell grants to loans, a number of which provide tax breaks. What’s not to like for upperand uppermiddle classes who are able to shelter income, are confident of their ability to repay loans, and who are able to position their children for careers in a global economy? Moreover, privatization and commercialization provide opportunity structures for the uppermiddle and middle class, creating nonprofessorial positions that are expanding faster and often command salaries equal to those of professors, especially professors in fields that are not close to the market. We theorize that privatization and commercialization are creating new circuits of knowledge that are, to some degree, unrelated to instruction but which are central to creating careers for graduates in the knowledge economy, ranging from producer services to financial management. In sum, Priest and St. John’s sentiments are laudable, but the analysis provided in the various chapters overlooks many of the features of the privatized/commercialized landscape of higher education that are likely to continue short-circuiting the attainment of equal education opportunity. Similarly, the analysis of state, federal, and institutional financial aid asks largely for more, without specifying clearly how higher education will change to make access meaningful in terms of outcomes.