Which Catholic Colleges and Universities Promote Social Mobility?
Using the Student Access and Earnings Classification
In her essay, “What Students? Which Mission?”, Laura Nichols, a professor of sociology at Santa Clara University in California, argues that the Catholic mission of a college or university shouldn’t just impact its curriculum and the spiritual life of students, but also the sorts of students the university seeks to attract. Nichols’s essay appears in the volume Catholic Higher Education and Catholic Social Thought (Paulist, 2023), edited by Bernard G. Prusak and Jennifer Reed-Bouley, which takes a wide-ranging look at how Catholic social thought can inform our thinking about Catholic identity and mission at Catholic colleges and universities (CCUs), and which I recently reviewed here.
Nichols looks in particular at whether CCUs are providing students with upward social mobility, a goal that had originally been part of the mission of many of the CCUs in the United States which were founded to serve growing immigrant populations. Nichols first looks at the most prestigious Catholic CCUs, identified as those that are highest ranked among national universities in US News & World Report’s annual rankings, which include:
University of Notre Dame (Ind.)
Georgetown University (DC)
Boston College (Mass.)
Villanova University (Penn.)
Santa Clara University (Cal.)
Loyola Marymount University (Cal.)
Fordham University (N.Y.)
Gonzaga University (Wash.)
Marquette University (Wis.)
University of San Diego (Cal.)
She finds that the majority of students at these universities come from families in the top income quintile. Meanwhile, at only one university (San Diego) are more than 20 percent of students first generation students (that is, students whose parents did not attend college), and at none of them are more than 20 percent of students Pell grant recipients (a proxy measure for students from lower-income families). Therefore, the CCUs with the most resources and prestige are not doing a good job of providing an accessible education to first-generation and lower-income students.
Nichols then compares the enrollment rate of first-generation students at several CCUs to the graduation rate of first-generation students at those colleges. One finding is that the ten prestigious universities mentioned above, although they enroll a relatively low number of first-generation students, do a good job of successfully graduating them. Nichols attributes this both to the fact that these universities do a good job of graduating students in general, and they likely attract many of the most academically promising or better prepared first-generation students. Second, Nichols also finds that many of the CCUs where first-generation students are 30 percent or more of the student body struggle to graduate 60 percent or more of those students in six or fewer years. On the other hand, she identifies nine CCUs that welcome first-generation students and maintain high graduation rates:
Cabrini University (Penn.)
Elms College (Mass.)
DePaul University (Ill.)
Immaculata University (Penn.)
Iona University (N.Y.)
Mercy College (Ohio)
Molloy College (N.Y.)
Rivier University (N.H.)
University of St. Francis (Ill.)
Cabrini has since closed its doors. Nichols argues that these CCUs can provide a model for how other colleges and universities can both attract and provide social mobility students from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the American Council on Education have recently introduced a new tool that can help CCUs pursue this aspect of their mission identified by Nichols: the Student Access and Earnings Classification. The Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education are best known for grouping colleges and universities based on degrees granted and research focus (e.g., Research I, Liberal Arts, etc.). These classifications have been completely overhauled in 2025, focusing on degrees granted, the mix of academic programs, and the size of the student body. This revision also included the creation of a new classification, the Student Access and Earnings Classification.
This new classification uses data on the enrollment rates of students receiving Pell grants and of students from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds. Student success is measured in terms of earnings eight years after enrollment compared to regional median incomes. Although using different types of data, the Student Access and Earnings Classification provides a window into which institutions of higher education are accessible to students from a broad range of backgrounds and provide students with social mobility. It therefore can serve as a helpful tool for the leaders of CCUs to assess their own commitment to this aspect of Catholic mission and compare themselves to other institutions.
That being said, the classification, particularly the focus on later earnings, is not without limitations. For one, for Catholic colleges and universities, future income is not the only measure of student success; the development of critical thinking, communication skills, and intercultural competence, an active spiritual life, ethical values, and a spirit of service are also crucial. Second, many professional fields, like education and social work, may promise lower incomes but are nevertheless essential avenues of service to the common good and should be promoted by CCUs. That being said, the Student Access and Earnings Classification can be one tool among others for CCUs to assess themselves.
The first Student Access and Earnings Classifications were published this past April. Colleges and universities are divided into six categories based on two factors: Higher and Lower Access, and Higher, Medium, and Lower Earnings. Those institutions that are classified as having Higher Access and Higher Earnings (what are called Opportunity Colleges and Universities) are those that are most accessible to a broad range of students and that best promote social mobility.
Where do Catholic colleges and universities fit into the classification? Several CCUs are classified as Opportunity Colleges and Universities. Looking only at those that offer baccalaureate degrees and above and offer a broad mix of programs, I’ve listed them below, in alphabetical order (unfortunately Substack doesn’t yet have the option of creating a table!):
Barry University (Fl.)
Bellarmine University (Ky.)
Benedictine University (Ill.)
Christian Brothers University (Tenn.)
University of Mount St. Vincent (N.Y.)
DePaul University (Ill.)
Dominican University (N.Y.)
La Salle University (Penn.)
Lewis University (Ill.)
Madonna University (Mich.)
Manhattan College (N.Y.)
Marymount University (Va.)
Mount Saint Mary College (N.Y.)
Mount Saint Mary’s University (Cal.)
Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico (Arecibo, Mayaguez, and Ponce campuses)
Regis University (Col.)
Rockhurst University (Mo.)
Saint Martin’s University (Wash.)
Seton Hall University (N.J.)
Siena Heights University (Mich.)
St. Francis College (N.Y.)
St. John’s University (N.Y.)
St. Mary’s University (Tex.)
St. Thomas University (Fl.)
University of Detroit Mercy (Mich.)
University of Saint Joseph (Conn.)
University of Saint Mary (Kan.)
University of San Francisco (Cal.)
University of St. Francis (Ill.)
University of St. Thomas (Minn.)
University of St. Thomas (Tex.)
University of the Incarnate Word (Tex.)
Wheeling University (W.V.)
Xavier University (La.)
This lengthier list provides some reasons for hope that providing an accessible and empowering education is a viable path for CCUs. Interestingly, only two institutions (DePaul and the University of St. Francis) overlap with Nichols’s list of CCUs that are successfully enrolling and graduating first-generation students. Mercy College and Molloy are both classified as focusing on specialized programs, while Elms College, Iona, and Rivier are classified as High Access and Medium Earnings.
Those colleges and universities classified as Low Access and High Earnings best correspond to Nichols’s category of colleges and universities that attract a less diverse, higher income population of students and that do not do a good job of promoting social mobility and therefore that inadvertently reinforce income inequality. CCUs included in this classification (again, focusing only on baccalaureate and above with a broad mix of programs) include:
Boston College (Mass.)
Carroll College (Mont.)
College of the Holy Cross (Mass.)
Creighton University (Neb.)
DeSales University (Penn.)
Dominican University (Cal.)
Duquesne University (Penn.)
Fairfield University (Conn.)
Fordham University (N.Y.)
Georgetown University (DC)
Gonzaga University (Wash.)
Immaculata University (Penn.)
John Carroll University (Ohio)
Loyola Marymount University (Cal.)
Loyola University (Ill.)
Loyola University (Md.)
Marquette University (Wis.)
Providence College (R.I.)
Sacred Heart University (Conn.)
Saint Anselm College (N.H.)
Saint Francis University (Penn.)
Saint John’s University (Minn.)
Saint Joseph’s College (Maine)
Saint Joseph’s University (Penn.)
Saint Louis University (Mo.)
Saint Mary’s College (Ind.)
Saint Mary’s College (Cal.)
Santa Clara University (Cal.)
Seattle University (Wash.)
Spring Hill College (Ala.)
Stonehill College (Mass.)
The Catholic University of America (DC)
Thomas More University (Ky.)
Universidad del Sagrado Corazon (P.R.)
University of Dayton (Ohio)
University of Notre Dame (Ind.)
University of Portland (Ore.)
University of San Diego (Cal.)
University of Scranton (Penn.)
Villanova University (Penn.)
Walsh University (Ohio)
Xavier University (Ohio)
Notably, all of the more prestigious CCUs identified by Nichols are also included in this classification. This much longer list includes lower ranked national universities like Seattle University and the University of Dayton and liberal arts colleges like Carroll College and St. Mary’s College (Ind.) that were not considered by Nichols. Even so, these CCUs demonstrate a similar pattern of promoting student success in terms of future earnings but enrolling smaller numbers of students from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups and students from lower-income families. Interestingly, Immaculata University appeared on Nichols’s list of universities that successfully promote first-generation students, but in this classification of universities based on race, ethnicity, and family income, it was included among the Low Access universities.
Of course, other CCUs not included in the above two lists were classified in the other four groupings or were considered to have a special focus in their programming (for example, nursing).
The Student Access and Earnings Classification is a helpful tool for Catholic institutions of higher education to assess whether they are sufficiently welcoming for students from a variety of backgrounds and whether they are promoting social mobility. It can serve as a starting point for conversations about what some institutions are doing successfully and how all institutions can do better at attracting and promoting the success of students from underrepresented ethnical and racial backgrounds, students from lower-income families, and first-generation students. I do wish, however, that the classification system had also included the variables Nichols used in her analysis, first-generation student enrollment and graduation rates, as well.
Of course, access and social mobility are only two aspects of the mission of Catholic institutions of higher education and need to be balanced by other considerations. Still, they are important considerations, and this new classification can begin conversations about how to better serve student populations.
Of Interest…
Continuing with the theme of higher education, writing in America, Jason King, the president of the College Theology Society, provides a reflection on this year’s annual convention of that professional society of Catholic theologians. I offered my own thoughts here. King summarizes the challenges facing Catholic theology in the US today, but he also describes how the convention gave him hope for the future of theology. However, this paragraph stood out as identifying a central facet of the problem: “The concern here is deeper than job loss. Theology helps communities reflect on human dignity, the power and priority of love and the hope of salvation for both souls and creation. Its slow erosion means people lose spaces and time to ask deep questions, to reflect on the gospel, to read and write about the life of discipleship. It means the church loses part of its life of thought, formation and witness. What is lost is not just individual goods but the good of each and the good of all.”
Last month, I placed Pope Leo XIV’s time in Peru as a missionary and bishop in the context of the political turmoil experienced in Peru since the 1980s. Earlier this month, the Inside the Vatican podcast sponsored by America released a three-part series on Leo XIV’s life before his election as pope. All three episodes are worth listening to, but the second focused on his time in Peru, so I wanted to highlight it in particular. It gives more attention to Robert Prevost’s life and work in Peru, including interviews with those who knew him, but likewise includes insights into the political and social situation in Peru at the time.
Coming Soon…
Last month, I pointed out that in May the Vatican had planned on releasing a document with guidelines on how local dioceses could implement the recommendations of the Synod on Synodality’s final document. May came and went, however, without the document being published, likely delayed because of the death of Pope Francis. Based on the fact that the release of the final reports from the ten study groups associated with the Synod has apparently been delayed until October, I speculated that these implementation guidelines might also be delayed until October. The Vatican proved me wrong, however. On July 7, the announced the publication of the implementation document, titled “Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod, 2025-2028.” In the next week, I’ll read through the document and offer my thoughts. Stay tuned!
I am a proud alumna of Saint Mary's University in Texas, and I was very confident that it would be included as an answer to the title of this article. Most students who attend St. Mary's rely on financial assistance and they work while attending school. Many are first generation college students. StMU has been recognized multiple years in a row by the White House for exrmplary service to the community by students, staff, faculty, and alumn. Graduates are extremely likely to be involved in serving their community long-term. Servant leadership is in the curriculum. So are philosophy and theology.
Servant of God Dorothy Day once spoke at St. Mary's, which is why my husband and I made a pilgrimage there after the recent national elections. I pray for the future of Catholic higher education.