dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

That's like saying if disneyland lowered its ticket prices more people would enjoy the experience. Well, that would be a different experience at a cheaper price, no different than a local random amusement park. Given there are many amusement parks on the thousand mile journey from home to florida, why the craving for disneyland, is what one should ask themselves? If disneyland wants more visitors, they will lower the price on their terms, not when public says it should. Disneyland has figured out a businessmodel to offer a certain level of experience for a lofty ticket price, and still maintain demand. Why should they change their model, because public far away with access to local amusement parks are crying sour grapes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

I just looked it up and 15% of Harvards class is from the top 1%.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university

That also says that 52% of Harvard students are between 80 and 99th %ile and 4.5% are between 0 and 20th. But somehow DCUM's take away is that the people in the 80th %ile are disadvantaged over the poor people.

Agreed. I honestly don’t think the slight bias towards poorer students is a bad thing; the opposite actually. I do think that the massive bias for the top 1% is a disgrace.

+1 affirmative action for the wealthy, as if they need more privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

That's like saying if disneyland lowered its ticket prices more people would enjoy the experience. Well, that would be a different experience at a cheaper price, no different than a local random amusement park. Given there are many amusement parks on the thousand mile journey from home to florida, why the craving for disneyland, is what one should ask themselves? If disneyland wants more visitors, they will lower the price on their terms, not when public says it should. Disneyland has figured out a businessmodel to offer a certain level of experience for a lofty ticket price, and still maintain demand. Why should they change their model, because public far away with access to local amusement parks are crying sour grapes?

only a dumb person would equate going to Disneyland with going to a top rated college.

Also, Disneyland is a for profit entity; college are not -- since you or a PP mentioned the non profit angle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

[Anonymous]

Makes sense to me. I graduated from one of the 12 schools examined in 2010 and felt like an outlier for being middle class (HHI of $90K).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

70th is $113k and 95th is $286k (in 2021). Which would probably cover many DCUM households, though not the "two kids in private school" type DCUM households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

70th is $113k and 95th is $286k (in 2021). Which would probably cover many DCUM households, though not the "two kids in private school" type DCUM households.

Correct, the title of this post is wrong. The dip is from around 70 (maybe just below) to 95ish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

70th is $113k and 95th is $286k (in 2021). Which would probably cover many DCUM households, though not the "two kids in private school" type DCUM households.

Most of DCUM is north of $286k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

70th is $113k and 95th is $286k (in 2021). Which would probably cover many DCUM households, though not the "two kids in private school" type DCUM households.

Most of DCUM is north of $286k.

No, it’s not. Possibly on the private school forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

70th is $113k and 95th is $286k (in 2021). Which would probably cover many DCUM households, though not the "two kids in private school" type DCUM households.

Most of DCUM is north of $286k.

Nah those are just the people who chime in to brag when someone asks HHI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

The 400k to 600k families with private school kids seem to complain the most. Even though that income and private seem to both be advantageous.

It’s the 100k - 300k families that go missing at these schools based on the data. They are discriminated against. That also corresponds nicely to what a mid level 2-income household would make. Two blue collar workers at the lower end to two mid level professionals at the higher end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read this article. Super interesting. It said athletic preferences tend to pull in rich kids because many sports are only played by rich kids.

Nah. The vast majority of athletes are certainly in the un-preferred 60th to 99th income percentile.

Coaches have a limited number of athletes they can ask for admissions preference. They hate using a roster slot to make an offer and then the kid doesn't attend. If athletes tend to be "richer" it is because coaches are more willing to extend offers to kids who are sure to be able to afford attending. A college making an ED admission offer and then the parents say "oops we actually can't afford this" is a thing that can happen even for non-athletes.

This is just false. The vast majority of college athletes play lacrosse, golf, squash, swimming, fencing, sailing, etc... The number of football and basketball players is smaller when you combine the other categories.

https://www.ncsasports.org/state-of-recruiting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

Sure, but all this talk of "oh we have to charge that much so that we can cover the non rich kids" is BS. If they lowered the costs, more people could afford to pay for it without taking out stupid sized loans.

That's like saying if disneyland lowered its ticket prices more people would enjoy the experience. Well, that would be a different experience at a cheaper price, no different than a local random amusement park. Given there are many amusement parks on the thousand mile journey from home to florida, why the craving for disneyland, is what one should ask themselves? If disneyland wants more visitors, they will lower the price on their terms, not when public says it should. Disneyland has figured out a businessmodel to offer a certain level of experience for a lofty ticket price, and still maintain demand. Why should they change their model, because public far away with access to local amusement parks are crying sour grapes?

only a dumb person would equate going to Disneyland with going to a top rated college.

Also, Disneyland is a for profit entity; college are not -- since you or a PP mentioned the non profit angle.

Non-profit colleges are not public universities. they just mean all the profit has to be reinvested back into the business, but like anyother business can and do operate like any other business. a non-profit's goal is to maximize profit, reinvest, and grow the business in this case university business. They owe nothing to the taxpayer unlike a public or state owned university, and taxpayers and government dont get to say how a nonprofit should operate. Business serves and responds to its customers.

That said, the question falls back on the customers. Why are you going to a business that you cannot afford? And why moan about the miniscule number of customers who are willing to pay that high price? Every city has expensive lobster and steakhouse restaurant that a few customers dont mind paying to eat at often. Just because 99% of the city population cant afford to eat there daily, should they be shunned for their fine dining business model?

There are 4000 total US universities and just 8 of them are in the ivy leagues (0.2%) Elite universities just like luxury business have come up with a business model to serve a certain customer base. Prudent public would like across the spectrum of 4000 - 8 = 3992 universities and make choices of what suits their educational needs and what they can afford, instead of grouching and grumbling about how few people on the other end of town are always eating at the stakehouse.

[Anonymous]

How do schools know parental/HH income if you’re not applying for financial aid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an interesting article by the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/24/upshot/ivy-league-elite-college-admissions.html

Look at the graph. Small preference for the poor, large preference for the 0.1%. At the cost of the 60th to 99th percentile.

that's you DCUM.

Disagree. This chart seems to show the 70th to 95th being the issue.

The 99th is advantaged (just not as much as the 99.9). The 98/97/96 look ok, about average.

What income range is the 70th to 95th?

The 400k to 600k families with private school kids seem to complain the most. Even though that income and private seem to both be advantageous.

It’s the 100k - 300k families that go missing at these schools based on the data. They are discriminated against. That also corresponds nicely to what a mid level 2-income household would make. Two blue collar workers at the lower end to two mid level professionals at the higher end.

Do you have evidence to support that there are fewer 100K to 300K families than families under 100K?