Colleges really should be accepting more URM and low income students

[Anonymous]

because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

[Anonymous]

This thread is going to deteriorate quickly I predict. But before it does I want to point out that even if you are middle class and higher and look black or Hispanic (with brown skin/obvios that you have indigenous and/or black ancestors) there is a often a terrible unconscious bias that teachers and other students and families have toward you. It means that from the get go even if you are one of the highest students you don’t get put in the highest reading group or recommended for advanced programs or services. It really is harmful and takes a toll, especially boys with brown skin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

Then maybe they can all just apply and not go?

[Anonymous]

How do you propose they fund these colleges after removing all the wealthy/full pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you propose they fund these colleges after removing all the wealthy/full pay?

Why did you decide it was a zero sum game? How did you jump from OP’s suggesting they admit more URM and low income students all the way to “ removing all the wealthy/full pay” students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you propose they fund these colleges after removing all the wealthy/full pay?

Why did you decide it was a zero sum game? How did you jump from OP’s suggesting they admit more URM and low income students all the way to “ removing all the wealthy/full pay” students?

There is already a large push to do this. When is it enough? There are only so many seats. For every low income, you have to get rid of some revenue. It’s not a zero sum game.

[Anonymous]

No everyone should equally and fairly compete.
This is not a communist country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No everyone should equally and fairly compete.
This is not a communist country.

Ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No everyone should equally and fairly compete.
This is not a communist country.

Do communist countries have a lot of private universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

I’m not following. You indicate that merely apply to an elite college provides the equally benefit to attending. So why should they expand admission if simply applying results in equal benefits?

[Anonymous]

Don't really care what elite universities do, but directional universities and eventually flagships should be so well-funded that they don't need to charge tuition to instate kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

As a first generation college parent who went to a state school and whose kids went to an "elite private college," I would say this post is both misleading and nonsensical.

1) Yes, students who attend some elite private schools have many opportunities not available to most kids attending most state schools;

2) The post seems to assume that if you are not a low-income, immigrant or minority student, you must be a "rich white man." That's obviously false. White students who are not rich benefit enormously from what is offered at elite private schools. And most white students are not rich. Far from it.

3) The cited article does not say what the OP wrote. To the contrary, it says right in the subtitle (and in the body) that elite private schools can have a big effect "if you are not rich, not white, or not a guy." So non-rich white guys and white women (presumably both rich and non-rich white women but that isn't clear in the article) do get a real boost from attending an elite school.

Of course, this state school grad couldn't help but notice the entire article - which seems to be based on two different studies -- measures the "boost" from an elite education in terms of income. While that's not a bad proxy in some instances, it can be very deceptive talking about "elite colleges."

A) Some of the most prestigious jobs in America are disproportionately given to graduates of elite colleges but are not necessarily the highest paying in a field. For example, Supreme Court Justices. While the focus is on their overwhelmingly "elite" law schools, they also usually have had elite college educations.

B) Think tanks. positions at certain publications, and some federal government positions tend to attract grads from elite schools, but may be lower paying jobs.

C) The "rich white guys" at elite schools often don't seek out the highest paying jobs because they don't have too. Yes, some fill up high paying consulting shops and finance positions, but go to any elite private school and you will hear a strong counter-movement against those "soul crushing" jobs. If mommy and daddy have money, you can work for Teach for America, other non-profits, etc. Kids at state schools usually don't feel that freedom so they seek out higher paying jobs.

Finally, even if you accept the premise that elite colleges can change the lives of poor, immigrant and minority students more than white students (which has not been shown), that does not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that schools should simply accept more of them. Schools already exercise great discretion in taking into account each applicants difficult circumstances and do not hold all students to the same standards of grades and standardized tests. An academic institution may see itself as helping to promote social engineering, but that is not its primary reason for being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

I’m not following. You indicate that merely apply to an elite college provides the equally benefit to attending. So why should they expand admission if simply applying results in equal benefits?

Granted, I did bring up two different points. One (that URM and low-income students end up better off after attending elite private colleges while there is little difference for wealthy white males) is supported by the article I included.

I somewhat rashly included the other point, that people who simply apply to competitive colleges do as well as if they'd attended the same colleges. I learned this in a talk I went to, and I don't have at my fingertips the data to back it up. And it seems to contradict the first point a little. I'll look for that data, or maybe someone else can provide it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

Why not go all in and have a quota system in employment as well?
By OP's logic, a hard quota in employment "can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:because attending an elite private college can have a tremendous positive impact on the lives of low-income, immigrant and minority students. The same experience doesn't affect the outcome for rich white men.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

I learned in a talk recently that students who apply to elite colleges end up doing as well as those who actually attend them.

Colleges should be allowed to accept whoever they want AS LONG AS I'M NOT SUBSIDIZING THEY THROUGH TAX REBATES AND FEDERAL FUNDING. Pay your taxes, do what you want. Simple.