“the microsegment of the top 4 to 5 percent (earning $222,400 to $251,100) fares the absolute worst at t20 admissions

[Anonymous]

Bad article. Far too wordy instead of showing the data.
No sense of how much lower the admission rate is.

[Anonymous]

Many on DCUM fail to realize that if you add up ALL of the ivy spots that amounts to less half of a percent for all kids going to a 4 year school once you take out athletic recruits and international students.

So unless you have a hook, including amazing EC, it is a lottery ticket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are kids with low income actually more likely to get into Yale, or are they more likely to be eliminated from the applicant pool before they even put together an application? Are kids in that 4 to 5% group really underrepresented relative to their percent in the population, or just relative to their percent in the applicant pool?

I have trouble reading this article about a kid who got into a prestigious K-12 prep school, and then a prestigious college that she chose to apply to and loved, as an evidence that she was disadvantaged.

This. They are looking at a socioeconomic bell curve among applicants, noting that schools have strong reasons to admit both the very wealthy and the poorest applicants at much higher rates, and of course the people in the middle of that bell curve (of which there are exponentially more) have the lowest admissions rate. This is not a surprising or even very interesting observation, and yet it's one that seems to perennially surprise UMC families who perceive themselves as being unique. We are not unique, we are a dime a dozen. Have your kid apply to a few of these schools if they have the grades/scores/desire, but aim for the state flagship (may not be your in-state flagship if you're in a very competitive state like VA, but another state flagship will do) or a less competitive SLAC because that's probably where your smart, hardworking, but otherwise incredibly basic kid is going. And guess what -- they'll probably do great there and might even be a lot better off than if they luck into a spot at Williams or Princeton where they will for sure discover, quickly, how prosaic their background is and how ill-prepared they are to compete with people who have trust funds and connections or who are genius-level talents or who are so aggressively ambitious that they will steamroll anyone who stands in their path. Which is who winds up at Ivies, for the most part.

This is an interesting take. I was a small fish in a big pond (HYP). DS is kind of a big fish in a small pond (T40 SLAC). I definitely see the benefit of being a big fish and recall the disadvantages of being a small fish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. We fall into that exact segment (not surprisingly, since here I am on DCUM), and in a way, I'm glad that first DC, who is a freshman in college now, had a bit of a rough patch in high school that knocked them out of any kind of contention for a higher ranked school than just an in-state non-flagship.

Second child is in 10th, and has already expressed an interest in not aiming too high in terms of college admission. I think it's a smart strategy, he can enjoy high school, not aim for perfect grades, and get accepted somewhere medium.

Both of my white, financially stable kids will be fine. But if they were academic superstars, or had spent all of high school gunning for a tippy top college and missed, only to "end up" at the same place they would have if they'd just coasted, that would indeed suck. I feel for those kids, although I guess they're learning early that life is a rigged game, and most things aren't fair.

I've also though it was a pressure reliever that my kids have ADHD. They are very smart (1500 SAT) but both struggled to varying degrees with executive function and I enforced NOT taking all the APs they wanted to with the goal of focusing on strengths and not creating too much stress. Both ended up at solid, affordable schools with good programs for the things they love. Neither was focused on a reach-heavy list but found safeties and reliable targets that were good fits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because those colleges know that the parents cannot afford it, and think that they will decline, thereby impacting the yield.

I think it's as simple as this. I saw this trend with my 2 kids - one attended private, the other public. It wasn't super clear-cut - in fact more kids attended top 3 ivy's from the public than the private, but for schools like Colgate, Vanderbilt, Bucknell, Wake Forest, W&L etc. it seemed like private school applicants were the sweet spots and the public kids didn't get as many offers. My DC was not Ivy material, but with okay grades got into all of the private colleges they applied to and I think our demonstrated ability to pay full freight was part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are kids with low income actually more likely to get into Yale, or are they more likely to be eliminated from the applicant pool before they even put together an application? Are kids in that 4 to 5% group really underrepresented relative to their percent in the population, or just relative to their percent in the applicant pool?

I have trouble reading this article about a kid who got into a prestigious K-12 prep school, and then a prestigious college that she chose to apply to and loved, as an evidence that she was disadvantaged.

This. They are looking at a socioeconomic bell curve among applicants, noting that schools have strong reasons to admit both the very wealthy and the poorest applicants at much higher rates, and of course the people in the middle of that bell curve (of which there are exponentially more) have the lowest admissions rate. This is not a surprising or even very interesting observation, and yet it's one that seems to perennially surprise UMC families who perceive themselves as being unique. We are not unique, we are a dime a dozen. Have your kid apply to a few of these schools if they have the grades/scores/desire, but aim for the state flagship (may not be your in-state flagship if you're in a very competitive state like VA, but another state flagship will do) or a less competitive SLAC because that's probably where your smart, hardworking, but otherwise incredibly basic kid is going. And guess what -- they'll probably do great there and might even be a lot better off than if they luck into a spot at Williams or Princeton where they will for sure discover, quickly, how prosaic their background is and how ill-prepared they are to compete with people who have trust funds and connections or who are genius-level talents or who are so aggressively ambitious that they will steamroll anyone who stands in their path. Which is who winds up at Ivies, for the most part.

Right, so when data naturally forms a bell curve you expect there to be selection against that tendency? Way to twist yourself into a pretzel.

Not what I said and no pretzels there.

The issue is that the income distribution of the entire US population is different than the income distribution among applicants to T20 schools. In the US as a whole, 50% of households make less than 75k. However, these families do not make up 50% of T20 applicants. They make up a much smaller proportion of applicants, and thus have a higher overall admission rate.

The lower middle class, with incomes of 75-150k, represent about 29% of the population. They may apply to T20s at a higher rate than students from families below 75k, but many students from this group will opt out because they do not come from communities where T20 attendance is considered as important, and families way worry about things like cost of travel (at 100k, a family is going to stress about the cost of flights to and from a school like Williams). So even this group may be underrepresented in T20 applications compared to the overall population.

Meanwhile, the percent of US households with an income of more than 250k is less than 4%. Even if every kid from one of these families applies to every T20, we're talking about maybe 20% of applicants. And since these applicants are going to contain a disproportionate number of legacies, donors, and incredibly well-resourced kids given every possible advantage to fulfill their potential prior to college, their admission rate is likely to be higher.

But let's look at the group the article is about. With family incomes well over 200k, these families are MUCH more likely to be ambitious in the way that attracts T20 applicants. The parents are more likely to have gone to T20s themselves, or to have aspired to go to them. They are more likely to live in cities where salaries are higher and where they are more likely to be exposed to other T20 grads, and workin industries where T20 credentials are highly valued. So a much higher percentage of students from this income level are likely to apply to T20 schools. Their parents can feel more confident that they will be able to afford to attend (despite the frequent "donut hole" protestations on this website -- if you have 1 or 2 kids and a 250k income, you can probably figure out a way to pay for a T20, even at full pay), and they are also more likely to view a T20 as worth this investment.

So these schools wind up admitting a lot applicants from both the bottom and tippy top of the income distribution curve, because there are so many fewer of them overall and they are more likely to have admissions advantages, whether that's being the valedictorian of their Title 1 inner city high school where not a single other person applied, or being the daughter of a billionaire. But students with parents making 200k to 250k are disproportionally represented in T20 applications, making them appear much more commonplace and harder to sell to admissions committees. Some will be admitted, but as a percentage of their total applications, relatively fewer.

It's not a pretzel. It's just what happens.

[Anonymous]

This was the standout statistic for me from the article, since we talk endlessly about legacy on DCUM:

“Legacy students in the top one percent are five times more likely to be admitted than a non-legacy student, while legacy candidates poorer than the top 10 percent are only three times more likely to get into an elite school. And because legacy candidates are predominantly white, “alumni preference” policies put Asian students at a particular disadvantage, research shows — a problem that is likely to continue even in the post-affirmative-action era.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was the standout statistic for me from the article, since we talk endlessly about legacy on DCUM:

“Legacy students in the top one percent are five times more likely to be admitted than a non-legacy student, while legacy candidates poorer than the top 10 percent are only three times more likely to get into an elite school. And because legacy candidates are predominantly white, “alumni preference” policies put Asian students at a particular disadvantage, research shows — a problem that is likely to continue even in the post-affirmative-action era.”

A few posters, including myself, said this would be one of the fallouts of the supreme court’s decision. At many of the elite private schools many of the spots that don’t go to URM‘s will go to wealthy applicants not Asian American non-hooked students.

[Anonymous]

I truly don't understand the obsession with top ranked schools. You can just learn to code or acquire a similar skill and out earn most of them while working from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:only DCUM thinks this is unique to DCUM. You think Cleveland, Columbus, Chicago, Queens, St Paul, half of NJ, Colorado Springs etc aren't full of families making 225k with smart kids who have done all the same things???

I am sitting here reading this in Colorado Springs and cracking up appreciatively at the mention. We are smack dab this income and my son with a with a 35 ACT, unweighted, 4.0, and international sports experience ended up at a flagship out of state. Thank goodness for the western undergraduate exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You mean, the DCUM low class?

Right. They get in, but since the homeless tend to have spotty internet service, they usually don’t get the acceptance in time.

[Anonymous]

The problem is around here people scream poverty in that income and expect a full ride vs. saving since birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are kids with low income actually more likely to get into Yale, or are they more likely to be eliminated from the applicant pool before they even put together an application? Are kids in that 4 to 5% group really underrepresented relative to their percent in the population, or just relative to their percent in the applicant pool?

I have trouble reading this article about a kid who got into a prestigious K-12 prep school, and then a prestigious college that she chose to apply to and loved, as an evidence that she was disadvantaged.

This. They are looking at a socioeconomic bell curve among applicants, noting that schools have strong reasons to admit both the very wealthy and the poorest applicants at much higher rates, and of course the people in the middle of that bell curve (of which there are exponentially more) have the lowest admissions rate. This is not a surprising or even very interesting observation, and yet it's one that seems to perennially surprise UMC families who perceive themselves as being unique. We are not unique, we are a dime a dozen. Have your kid apply to a few of these schools if they have the grades/scores/desire, but aim for the state flagship (may not be your in-state flagship if you're in a very competitive state like VA, but another state flagship will do) or a less competitive SLAC because that's probably where your smart, hardworking, but otherwise incredibly basic kid is going. And guess what -- they'll probably do great there and might even be a lot better off than if they luck into a spot at Williams or Princeton where they will for sure discover, quickly, how prosaic their background is and how ill-prepared they are to compete with people who have trust funds and connections or who are genius-level talents or who are so aggressively ambitious that they will steamroll anyone who stands in their path. Which is who winds up at Ivies, for the most part.

Right, so when data naturally forms a bell curve you expect there to be selection against that tendency? Way to twist yourself into a pretzel.

Not what I said and no pretzels there.

The issue is that the income distribution of the entire US population is different than the income distribution among applicants to T20 schools. In the US as a whole, 50% of households make less than 75k. However, these families do not make up 50% of T20 applicants. They make up a much smaller proportion of applicants, and thus have a higher overall admission rate.

The lower middle class, with incomes of 75-150k, represent about 29% of the population. They may apply to T20s at a higher rate than students from families below 75k, but many students from this group will opt out because they do not come from communities where T20 attendance is considered as important, and families way worry about things like cost of travel (at 100k, a family is going to stress about the cost of flights to and from a school like Williams). So even this group may be underrepresented in T20 applications compared to the overall population.

Meanwhile, the percent of US households with an income of more than 250k is less than 4%. Even if every kid from one of these families applies to every T20, we're talking about maybe 20% of applicants. And since these applicants are going to contain a disproportionate number of legacies, donors, and incredibly well-resourced kids given every possible advantage to fulfill their potential prior to college, their admission rate is likely to be higher.

But let's look at the group the article is about. With family incomes well over 200k, these families are MUCH more likely to be ambitious in the way that attracts T20 applicants. The parents are more likely to have gone to T20s themselves, or to have aspired to go to them. They are more likely to live in cities where salaries are higher and where they are more likely to be exposed to other T20 grads, and workin industries where T20 credentials are highly valued. So a much higher percentage of students from this income level are likely to apply to T20 schools. Their parents can feel more confident that they will be able to afford to attend (despite the frequent "donut hole" protestations on this website -- if you have 1 or 2 kids and a 250k income, you can probably figure out a way to pay for a T20, even at full pay), and they are also more likely to view a T20 as worth this investment.

So these schools wind up admitting a lot applicants from both the bottom and tippy top of the income distribution curve, because there are so many fewer of them overall and they are more likely to have admissions advantages, whether that's being the valedictorian of their Title 1 inner city high school where not a single other person applied, or being the daughter of a billionaire. But students with parents making 200k to 250k are disproportionally represented in T20 applications, making them appear much more commonplace and harder to sell to admissions committees. Some will be admitted, but as a percentage of their total applications, relatively fewer.

It's not a pretzel. It's just what happens.

That is a pretzel. Without a thumb on the scale the expectation is that the group that puts forth the most applicants will get the largest share of acceptances, simply because whatever rare trait is wanted it will also follow a normal distribution. The piccolo players won't be disproportionately wealthy, etc. 200K income is sufficient leisure to cultivate many talents. Sure their income may be commonplace, but that's circular.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Many on DCUM fail to realize that if you add up ALL of the ivy spots that amounts to [b]less half of a percent [/b]for all kids going to a 4 year school once you take out athletic recruits and international students.

So unless you have a hook, including amazing EC, it is a lottery ticket.[/quote]

They seems high enough when you consider that realistic applicants are 99+%ile on common metrics like GPA, SAT, and EC achievements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You mean, the DCUM low class?

Right. They get in, but since the homeless tend to have spotty internet service, they usually don’t get the acceptance in time.

TIL there are no numbers between 0 and 360,000