Higher education may be one of the most important channels through which people can attain improved life outcomes based on their merit rather than family background. If qualified students from lower-income families are underrepresented in higher education, there is potentially a failure not just in equity but in economic efficiency as well. The authors demonstrate that some universities slated for rewards based on the popular measures of low-income student enrollment actually serve relatively few low-income students from their pool. The reverse is also true: some universities that are slated for penalties based on the popular measures actually serve disproportionately many low-income students from their pool. The authors propose a sound measure of a university's success in providing opportunities to low-income students. Specifically, they show how to construct a university's "relevant pool"--the pool of students from which it could plausibly draw based on its academic mission and geographic location. The article illustrates how to compare a university's students to its relevant pool and demonstrates that such comparisons are highly informative--to show not just how the university serves low-income students but how it serves all students. The authors discuss the Intergenerational Mobility (IGM) measure in a bit of detail because it is apparently misunderstood. The authors show that it shares the flaws of the Bottom Quintile measure but also has additional flaws that lead it to punish universities that face relevant pools with high levels of income "equality." The article concludes with a broad discussion of how universities can evaluate themselves in a sound manner that could allow them to improve on goals of providing opportunity.