I feel bad for low-income/first-gen students at elite schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

It's funny you mention that. There's a part of the survey which corresponds to GPA for having high school honors (generally a public school thing, commonly seen on low income household applications) vs. not having any high school honors (generally a private school or extremely competitive public school thing, where they hesitate to rank students so that outcomes can be as good as possible...and something seen on higher income household applications).

The students with high school honors do noticeably worse than students who don't report having any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

You're comment is not the takeaway I see from OP's post

"The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72."

Oh, a 3.5 GPA from Stanford is so bad?
How dare Stanford risk sullying their academic reputation by allowing in such riff raff

+1 I don't understand how one draws that conclusion when the lowest income students are doing pretty damn well. Imagine if they didn't have to worry about work study, family obligations, and such like their higher household income peers.

[Anonymous]

If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids from lower economic backgrounds have not had the benefit of private tutoring and elite HS rigor to prepare them for college hence the lower GPA. [If they're not prepared to be there, they shouldn't be there.]

They may not have been held to the same academic standards as an elite HS. They probably know cheating is not ok but if everyone you know does it in school, how to you really understand the impact? [If they are smart enough to be at Princeton, they are smart enough to know that cheating is absolutely unacceptable.]

For jobs, I think you need to take out the jobs that we’re gotten through connections. Lower income kids don’t have a pipeline into a high paying job interview.

[Few full-pay kids have this either. And the lack of connections is counterbalanced by the fact that many, many companies are eager to make diversity hires.]

Diversity hires are for POCs. Having tags that indicate you're low-income or first-gen on your app will hinder your application to more elitist job pipelines (consulting, finance, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

It's funny you mention that. There's a part of the survey which corresponds to GPA for having high school honors (generally a public school thing, commonly seen on low income household applications) vs. not having any high school honors (generally a private school or extremely competitive public school thing, where they hesitate to rank students so that outcomes can be as good as possible...and something seen on higher income household applications).

The students with high school honors do noticeably worse than students who don't report having any.

I think I'm looking at the part you are referring to. Your use of "noticeably worse" can be taken to refer to a way bigger discrepancy than the numbers I'm see on the chart by those whose viewpoint is that the first gen and low income got in unfairly.

I don't think that difference is the red flag you make it sound like.

[Anonymous]

My take away from this is that colleges--especially schools like Princeton that have huge endowments--need to be doing more to help first gen students. They do not have networks at home, they can't afford to take on unpaid internships, they often have to work a job on campus, and they don't have personal networks for that first job out of college. Princeton should be providing funding for students to take unpaid but prestigious internships, increasing grants so that students don't have to work in order to participate in all the school activities they'd like to participate in (e.g., eating clubs), and should be actively assisting first gen students with alumni networking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

The thing is, they aren't really advised about the reality of the job market and the value of particular majors like their higher income peers are. Princeton obviously can't step in.

[Anonymous]

If you graduate with a 3.3 from Princeton you’re still going to be totally fine. Above a 3.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You feel bad for all the wrong reasons. It’s incredibly isolating to be first gen. No one back home gets it or can offer meaningful advice. Some of them are even trying to bring you down a notch. You’re painfully aware you’re not “one of” the elites who set the tone for your school. And you don’t understand how to leverage this big name school for the outcomes you know you’re supposed to.

+1 Honestly, these kids are doing really well all things considered. Graduating from Princeton or Stanford with above a 3.5 GPA is really good. It's going to launch these kids into a completely new trajectory. In terms of return on investment, making sure that Chaz from Connecticut stays in the 1% is pretty normal. Finding a way to help Wayne from West Virginia move from the bottom quartile to the upper quartile changes an entire family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

You're comment is not the takeaway I see from OP's post

"The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72."

Oh, a 3.5 GPA from Stanford is so bad?
How dare Stanford risk sullying their academic reputation by allowing in such riff raff

+1 I don't understand how one draws that conclusion when the lowest income students are doing pretty damn well. Imagine if they didn't have to worry about work study, family obligations, and such like their higher household income peers.

I mentor first-gen college students and another thing to remember is that, especially if we are talking about first-gen immigrant children, their grades may be lower because they are more likely to major in things with harsher curves like pre-med majors because they don't have any parental wealth to fall back on and are under pressure to have a career where they can support their parents someday. Even if their first love is art history, a first-gen immigrant kid would be under pressure not to major in that, while those with inherited wealth are more likely to be fine with their kids majoring in art history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

Poor students do get preferential admission and free rides at schools like Princeton. Some of them rise to the academic rigor while others don't. Same thing happens to legacy and sports admits as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

Who has the luxury of useless degrees?
I was first gen and went into engineering and did fine, even though a different science might have been my first pick if money was no object. I knew I had to have a career track right out of undergrad.

What you may not know about being poor is that you don't pick up merchandise unless you already know the price of it. I knew the other degrees were not in my budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet the discrepancies are worse for FGLI kids at big state schools, where you’re on your own to handle everything and where everything is “pay to play” I.e. you can buy better meal plans, better housing (both more luxurious & closer to campus), have to pay to go to sporting events, greek life etc. JMU certainly isn’t giving kids grants to afford greek life in the way that Princeton gives kids grants to afford eating clubs.

At Harvard, EVERY first year is on an unlimited meal plan. There is no paying more or less to buy a different kind of meal plan.

This is a VERY good point. Especially true of big SEC state schools where Greek life is huge on campus and which have kids from extremely poor families (as in, Alabama or Mississippi poor) and extremely rich families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

Poor students do get preferential admission and free rides at schools like Princeton. Some of them rise to the academic rigor while others don't. Same thing happens to legacy and sports admits as well.

Should they not?