Colleges really should be accepting more URM and low income students

[Anonymous]

So OP wants elite schools to admit students solely on URM and income. Nothing else. No criteria for preparedness to do the work required?

Brilliant!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So OP wants elite schools to admit students solely on URM and income. Nothing else. No criteria for preparedness to do the work required?

Brilliant!!

Literally, no one said that.

[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.

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.

Hillsdale and Grove City are the only ones that applies to.

[Anonymous]

The actual thread title does not match up with the OP's comments.

I do think that access to a college education for URMs is important and colleges of all levels should perform outreach to try and have a diverse applicant pool. Talented prospective URM students will emerge as a result. Organizations like Questbridge are good for the elite colleges.

The title implies blanket increased acceptance of URMs sans qualifications. Then we start getting into quotas and stuff like that.

[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.

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."

Admissions to elite universities benefit only a small number of people. A hard quota in employment will be a nice down payment on what this country owes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

Admissions to elite universities benefit only a small number of people. A hard quota in employment will be a nice down payment on what this country owes.

Lol.

[Anonymous]

Currently elite colleges are far more attainable to low income families than middle class. Does anyone anywhere give a shit about the middle class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, there was a study indicating that kids/families who seek out gifted schools based on lottery tend to do just as well whether they get in or not. That it is the ambition that leads them to apply for gifted programs that leads to good outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So the taxes of blue collar folks can go to pay for MC & UMC kids to go the state flagship for free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Currently elite colleges are far more attainable to low-income families than the middle class. Does anyone anywhere give a shit about the middle class?

LOL. Elite colleges are free for truly middle-class families--not DCUM middle-class. But see the W&M thread; most truly middle class families cannot afford W&M or UVa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Currently elite colleges are far more attainable to low income families than middle class. Does anyone anywhere give a shit about the middle class?

Yes. If you are URM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So the taxes of blue collar folks can go to pay for MC & UMC kids to go the state flagship for free?

For anyone who's qualified to go for free. Pink, blue, white, any collar.

[Anonymous]

The conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has said liberals usually propose programs that have no cost to them. Since OP is presumed to have graduated from college, how elite universities fill their classes have no effect on OP. Zero implication - zero cost to OP.

Talking about college admissions is a mere hypothetical for the OP. What would OP do in a more live and realistic scenario? How about on OP's next job search or promotion, OP simply takes a back seat to the next URM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Currently elite colleges are far more attainable to low income families than middle class. Does anyone anywhere give a shit about the middle class?

Sadly, the answer is often "not much." When I was coming of age, the Dem. Party was the party of the working class/middle calls and the Republicans were the upper middle class/affluent. What has happened on the left is a conscious focus on downplaying the importance of class relative to the importance of racial, ethnic, LGBQT, etc. identity. Focusing on class undermines the effort to form political blocks based on identity.

There is overall too much emphasis on elite colleges. While they do offer unique advantages, the typical first generation kid doesn't need it and may not even be able to take full advantage of it. I pointed out flaws in the study in an earlier post, but here is another potentially: did any of the studies compare majors of the students? My own family experience suggests that at State schools more first generation, low income and URM kids are studying engineering, economics, applied math, etc. If schools ever released statistics, my bet is that at the ivy league those students are disproportionately majoring in "softer" majors - American Studies, Afro-American Studies, Women's and Gender Studies, etc. If you want to raise up yourself and your family for generations, study something that leads to a solid paying job and for that state schools are perfectly adequate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So the taxes of blue collar folks can go to pay for MC & UMC kids to go the state flagship for free?

Who, exactly, are you referring to? Poor people don't pay much in taxes, and blue collar folks are middle class. I think you are trying to imply that white people, the ''normal americans'' in your view, would be paying for the ''others'' to go to college.