Lumina Foundation responds to NAICU: eligible, needy students still face financial barriers to higher education. (Controversy).

Editor's note: In our March issue, David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU,), took the Lumina Foundation to task for its report Unequal Opportunity: Disparities of College Access Among the 50 States. Warren charged that the report failed to offer a valid measure of the state of access and affordability in higher education. In the interest of fair play, we invited Ms. Lamkin to respond.

Lumina Foundation fully acknowledges NAICU's criticisms of Unequal Opportunity and the limitations of the available national data that schools report. We recognize that many colleges are working hard to improve their outreach to low-income students. NAICU's criticisms, however, have little to do with either the conclusions of the study or the state of degree attainment in the nation.

Lumina Foundation's report, Unequal Opportunity: Disparities in College Access Among the 50 States, sought to point out the large gap in unmet need, particularly for low- and median-income students. The conclusions of the report remain valid:

* Geography matters. A student's opportunity to gain access to and afford a postsecondary education varies from state to state.

* Low-income, college-qualified students, and particularly independent students, have fewer choices than median-income students for postsecondary education, and generally need to borrow to make a postsecondary institution affordable. These conclusions are not news--or should not be news--to the higher education community. In fact, Unequal Opportunity is the third report in three years to point out these significant issues.

* In its Measuring Up 2000 report, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education documents that college affordability--the relationships among family incomes, college prices, and student aid--varies considerably among the states.

* In 2001, the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, in its Access Denied report, demonstrated that academically prepared low-income students pursue and attain a postsecondary education at much lower rates than their median- and upper-income peers.

* Unequal Opportunity corroborates the findings of these earlier studies and documents geographical differences in opportunity. The report points no fingers at any group for the gaps that exist in college affordability and accessibility. Rather, we present a national policy question of tremendous consequence for the economic and social well-being of America. We challenge all stakeholders--including government, higher education, business, and philanthropy--to share responsibility for helping to solve this problem before the consequences of ignoring it are upon us. This does not mean that every college in America must become an open-admission, low-cost school. But it does mean that institutions must challenge themselves--within their missions and market niches--to make themselves more accessible and affordable to those students who qualify for admission but who will need help to enroll, persist, and graduate.

Our study took a snapshot of affordability. By classifying institutions into three affordability categories, we learned an important lesson: The word affordable has many different definitions to those in higher education. When a college is classified as unaffordable in our report, it meant that, on average, students in that group might experience serious financial barriers to accessibility. Yes, some students receive exceptional aid. However, it is likely that many students attend at serious financial inconvenience. Even though some students are willing and able to make such sacrifices to attend a college, that fact may not mean that the college is affordable. Thus our study points to another issue that needs our collective attention: What is affordable?

Lumina Foundation hopes to continue to spur more discussion about the issue of affordability. This issue must be confronted to allow more students to participate in the lifetime benefits that postsecondary education affords.