Questbridge: a Search for Scale
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
For the exclusive use of A. Harlam CASE: SI-83 DATE: 01/19/11 QUESTBRIDGE: A SEARCH FOR SCALE The benefit of applying to QuestBridge is obvious. QuestBridge gives low-income students like me a fair shot. It evens the playing field and removes the pressure of debt and financial woes from families who are just trying to make ends meet. QuestBridge is like an IV, providing the essential resources for students over a course of four years. – QuestBridge student, class of 2009 “The future of our democracy and economy rests upon ways of finding opportunity and mobility that are not happening in our unequal world. QuestBridge is at the crossroads of doing just that.” – Anthony Marx, president of Amherst College “QuestBridge is one of the most innovative programs for upward mobility that can be scaled.” – Bill Bradley, former U.S. senator and presidential candidate, QuestBridge board member It was January, 2010, the start of the new decade, and QuestBridge founder and president Michael McCullough considered his organization’s future. What had begun in 1994 as an intensive summer program for 15 high school kids was now the national leader in making college a reality for bright, motivated low-income students. In 2009 alone, QuestBridge had placed 1,500 high school seniors – with full, four-year scholarships – at 30 top colleges. In return, the organization received recruiting fees from the schools of $1.8 million; enough to cover more than 80 percent of its operating expenses and to put the organization on a path to self-sufficiency. Yet despite this success, QuestBridge’s leaders were compelled to do more. The fact remained that higher education at the country’s best colleges was still the preserve of well-off families. Only a tiny percentage of students attending top colleges came from the lowest economic quartile, even though thousands of students from low-income families scored competitively on the SAT each year and many elite colleges wanted to draw from these ranks and provide financial resources to make attendance possible. McCullough estimated that QuestBridge was Georgia Levenson Keohane revised this case under the supervision of Professor William Meehan III as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright © 2011 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, e-mail the Case Writing Office at: [email protected] or write: Case Writing Office, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 518 Memorial Way, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means –– electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or Dootherwise –– withoutNot the permission of theCopy Stanford Graduate School of Business.or Every effortPost has been made to respect copyright and to contact copyright holders as appropriate. If you are a copyright holder and have concerns about any material appearing in this case study, please contact the Case Writing Office at [email protected]. This document is authorized for educator review use only by Alan Harlam Brown University until November 2015. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. [email protected] or 617.783.7860 For the exclusive use of A. Harlam QuestBridge: A Search For Scale SI-83 p. 2 reaching only a small fraction of eligible students – high achieving, low-income “strivers”1 – who were not even applying to four-year colleges, let alone to top flight schools. Furthermore, QuestBridge’s leaders recognized that, in addition to expanding recruiting efforts to bring more strivers into the system, they needed to improve programs and services for students already in the Quest network. If the organization’s mission was to improve the future of low-income students – and to create a world of decision-makers drawn from every economic segment – should it not focus, too, on students’ success in college and on their post-college lives: graduate school, internships, and full-time employment opportunities? McCullough contemplated these two paths to growth: scaling both the breadth of the organization to reach more eligible strivers and the depth of QuestBridge’s expertise to meet the long-term needs of its current students. Were these two growth objectives achievable in operational and financial terms? And just how exactly would Quest expand its impact? QUEST’S HISTORY: AN OVERVIEW Founded in 1994 by Michael and Ana McCullough, Quest was in its earliest incarnation an intensive educational and college preparation program for talented, low-income high school students. Between 1994 and 2005 Quest operated five-week summer residential programs— known as QuestLeadership—on Stanford University’s campus for bright, at-risk students between their junior and senior years of high school. The summer sessions accepted around 20 students who attended free of charge, lived together in a Stanford dormitory, and received leadership training, college preparation, and professional advice. By the end of the summer, students learned to strive toward self-confidence, emotional maturity, altruism, and personal growth. (A more detailed description of the QuestLeadership model and history is in Exhibits 1- 3). During this first decade, QuestLeadership participants achieved an extraordinary 100 percent acceptance rate to college. Three-quarters of the students attended either Stanford or Harvard, and many became Rhodes Scholars, Fulbright Scholars, Soros Fellows, Yale Law and Harvard Medical School students, and leaders within their communities. As word of the program’s successes spread, so, too, did enthusiasm among potential Quest participants. By 2003, Quest received more than 2,000 applications to its summer program, of which it could accept only 20. McCullough hoped the organiZation could help many more of these applicants by connecting them to schools that sought to recruit low-income high school students. For Quest, this seemed a more natural and efficient path to expansion than trying to grow the intensive summer program at Stanford or at a second college campus (an endeavor Quest had undertaken with mixed results in 2000-2002). Furthermore, matching students to colleges might allow Quest to monetize its expertise in recruiting talented youth. By charging colleges a fee for a student match service, Quest might move closer to financial self-sufficiency. In 2004, Quest piloted its College Match program, which proved an enormous success: by 2006 Quest had matched 80 students to top colleges, each with full, four-year scholarship. For this service Quest earned in return $639,000, covering more than 40 percent of its operating 1 Quest defined “strivers” as those who had achieved early academic success, including high test scores, in spite of Dothe financial and culturalNot obstacles they faced.Copy or Post This document is authorized for educator review use only by Alan Harlam Brown University until November 2015. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. [email protected] or 617.783.7860 For the exclusive use of A. Harlam QuestBridge: A Search For Scale SI-83 p. 3 expenses. In 2008, Quest placed 1,000 high school seniors at 26 partner colleges and earned over one million dollars in the process. By 2009, the list of college partners had grown to 31, and Quest’s college fees had reached $1.8 million. The match program, now called QuestBridge, replaced QuestLeadership as the centerpiece program of the organiZation and had achieved more than 50 percent year-on-year growth. The question was, could Quest go further still? THE PROBLEM: SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM McCullough believed that QuestBridge had no choice but continued growth, but the growth had to be focused on the students’ life success in college and beyond, rather than just on admissions. Back in 1994, Michael and Ana had committed to help low-income students succeed in admissions and beyond, noting a sore lack of any systematic educational and professional guidance for this demographic. Despite the organization’s advances, the inequities of the U.S. higher education system, which had motivated Quest’s founding in the first place, still persisted. The Student Perspective: Misperception and ReMediation In operating QuestLeadership, the McCulloughs learned that many high-achieving, low-income students rarely applied to top colleges like Stanford and Harvard, and if they did, they often applied either to the highest-ranked colleges (based on ratings like the one from U.S. News and World Report), or to lower-priced local colleges, where financial aid was scarce. These students often missed a large range of competitive colleges in-between, schools with strong financial aid and support for students, including small and mid-sized liberal arts colleges with the financial capacity to offer substantial aid. The national data bore out the McCulloughs’ experience at Quest. Only 3 percent of students attending America’s top 146 colleges came from the lowest economic quartile, and only 10 percent from the lower half of the economic distribution. In real terms, this meant that a college freshman was 25 times more likely to have a roommate who was upper class than working class.2 The paucity of low-income, high achieving students in competitive colleges masked their numbers: each year more than 30,000 students whose family incomes were below $41,000 scored higher than 1300 on the combined math and verbal SAT. The problem of under- representation existed because over half the low-income students who scored well on standardized tests did not even apply to four-year colleges, let alone to a top-tier university or a well-endowed liberal arts college. Of those who did apply, barely half enrolled.3 The McCulloughs believed that this disconnect between talent, eligibility, and school resources illustrated a fundamental lack of information about how the top-end university application and financial aid systems worked.