Reviewed by: Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status, and Student Opportunity by Barrett J. Taylor and Brendan Cantwell Caroline Thouin Barrett J. Taylor and Brendan Cantwell. Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status, and Student Opportunity. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2019. 202pp. Paperback: $34.98. ISBN 9780813593500 In the current market-driven higher education system, the race to elite status has created competition for institutions to fill seats and acquire large sums of revenue (Marginson, 2006). In this book, Barrett J. Taylor and Brandan Cantwell cast a critical light on the conditions of the unequal higher education system. Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status, and Student Opportunity, discusses both the historical and theoretical foundations that have created today's competitive institutional hierarchy and the role that universities, states, and policy makers have in reversing these trends. The first portion of the book focuses on orienting the reader to the current context in which institutions operate, by describing the historical changes the system has undergone. The authors suggest that over time, higher education has become more unequal. This was caused by a decline in state financial support and continuous competition for status between institutions. With data to back up their claims, we learn that state spending on higher education has decreased by almost 30 percent between the late 1970's and the early 2000's. Not mentioned by the authors, but a critical piece to understanding the importance of this financial trend, is the effect that decreasing state appropriations have had on student completion at public research institutions. A recent study showed that a 10% decrease in state appropriations over time at a public research institutions leads to a 3.5% decline in bachelor's degrees and a 7.2% decline in Ph.D. degrees completed (Bound, Braga, Khanna, & Turner, 2019). This decline in degree completion creates an even larger gap between the elite and tuition-reliant institutions and the graduates they produce. In response to lower state appropriations, an increasing number of tuition-dependent institutions have surfaced. These institutions attempt to make up for the holes that decreased state support left by using students' tuition to cover the majority of their budgets. This increase in tuition-reliant institutions intensifies competition for the top students, resources, and endowments, just to keep doors open. To this point, the authors make a bold and powerful statement that "campus-officials prioritize competition for status and resources as well as-or, in some cases, in place of-fulfillments of their traditional missions" (p. 24). The impact that the focus on rankings has had is a well-studied topic. Lynch (2015), noted that the focus on measurable outputs that could potentially land the university a higher ranking, replaces trust and integrity with the need for control and competition that devalues the purpose of the public service that is education. In essence, the current system places the value of education in how it is measured numerically (Lynch, 2015). Though scholars have argued whether the ranking system is necessary, there is somewhat of a consensus that it could use revision. For example, current rankings privilege the already privileged and ignore key aspects of the academic experience, such as teaching (Altbach, 2006). Adding to the complexities of competition is that the rise in higher education participation has yet to positively impact America's most marginalized communities. The authors note that even though participation in higher education is on the rise, 'good-value' seats are not being occupied [End Page E-40] by underserved students on a large scale. In fact, just as underserved students began enrolling into higher education in large numbers, competition for state appropriations and other financial resources has limited the opportunities these students may have to attend Elite or Super Elite institutions. On the other hand, the wealthy continue to acquire 'good-value' seats. One explanation from contemporary research may be that, for affluent families the pressure to prepare their children for a good college includes SAT/ACT prep courses, guidance counselors, and admissions officers. These purchases give them a leg up on the working and middle class families. In the end, affluent families bring in high property taxes and large tuition checks that elite colleges rely on. For...