The New York Times recently (yet again) called out Washington University on its significantly lacking socioeconomic diversity compared to other institutions in terms of ranking and endowment size. On a scatter plot mapping percentage of Pell Grant recipients in the student body versus endowment per student, Wash. U. is an embarrassingly obvious outlier. This begs the question: it’s been a year since the last New York Times story about underwhelming socioeconomic diversity at the University; what has been done in the interim?

The administration is highlighting the progress of moving from 6 percent of students receiving Pell Grants to 8 percent, but that is no cause for celebration when the school still lags behind comparable schools. Sure, the meager improvement is a sign of a positive trend, but the dearth of socioeconomic diversity on campus is still a serious issue. The administration and admissions office must continue efforts to trend the Pell Grant statistic upward.

“There is no way around it. We need to do better,” Provost Holden Thorp said in a Sept. 8 press release.

We agree.

By remaining the only top-20 school in the U.S. News & World Report rankings that is need-aware, Wash. U. is signaling an apathetic stance. Channeling resources toward new facilities and merit-based aid seemingly communicates more focus on climbing in prestige than in bringing in a diverse group of talented students, regardless of background.

The problem here is that the University is missing out on qualified students who could add to our community in ways other than tuition. Buildings are great, but it is ultimately the people inside them that shape the institution.

The University could start by reaching out more to the St. Louis community. While the sponsorship of Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) Inspire Academy and a handful other St. Louis schools is a nice start, Wash. U. has mostly neglected to work within the St. Louis Public Schools structure. Although the SLPS system is admittedly struggling, the University should be working to identify excelling students that may be slipping through the cracks of college recruitment and admissions. The University should be attempting to form a relationship with disadvantaged high school students in the public school system and not just relying on charter schools.

The continuance of the need-aware policy is most problematic. It is time for the administration to address this issue with actions rather than words. The need-aware admissions policy likely discourages students with financial concerns from applying. If low-income students don’t apply in the first place, the admissions office can’t offer them admission, and the broader issue can’t start to be solved.

It’s been a year and, in short, little has really changed. One possible explanation is that there was not enough time to connect with students before the fury of the application process began for the class of 2018, but the root of the issue is much deeper. The administration has expressed more of an interest in socioeconomic diversity since the initially critical New York Times story from 2013, but it must follow the stated commitment with ongoing, extended work.