America's Top Colleges Have a Rich-Kid Problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AN A- average in a school in a low-SES area often doesn't mean the same as an A- somewhere in Westchester. The best predictor of college success is rigor of high school courseload.

Also, the most selective colleges look for serious extracurriculars, with leadership and initiative. Poor kids are disadvantaged in some subtle ways here. Colleges usually don't hold it against kids who have to work. However, if kids are stuck in cul-de-sacs because they don't have a car of their own, and their parent have to work, they can't go to all of the rehearsals, practices and meetings that a serious extracurricular commitment requires.

They also aren't necessarily raised to take initiative; they are raised to toe the line. Thus, they don't start clubs at school, or do independent research projects. I've been an Ivy interviewer for a while. The upper middle class kids chatter confidently with me about their lives. Some of the middle middle class kids have trouble looking me in the eye.

Please. This is insulting. Reminds me of when I arrived at my top 30 college on a scholarship and my roommate (daughter of a Republican Senator) mentioned that "Private colleges are for people who can afford them, for everyone else there are state schools."

Your comments are disturbing.

Yeah, pretty clueless. A few things you missed, Ivy interviewer . . .

1) In fairness, to judge rigor in an applicant's transcript, the adcom must look at the context -- i.e., the curriculum offered by the applicant's high school, not the curriculum offered by another high school which the applicant did not attend and never had the possibility of attending.

2) You're absolutely correct that poor kids are disadvantaged with respect to compiling a resume of extra-curricular activities, though it's not a particularly subtle disadvantage as you would characterize it. Not only do poor kids have to work, and not only do their parents not have time to shuttle them to activities, but, beyond that, their parents can't even pay for these many activities, nor do they know from the moment the child is born that their kids should be involved in these activities. They're not packaging the kids, as so many of those "risk-taking" upper-middle-class kids have been packaged, or at least advised, by their parents.

3) Notwithstanding the above, if you look at the research by Avery and Hoxby, what's apparent is not that poor kids aren't well-qualified for admission to highly selective colleges and universities, but that they don't even apply. This is a significant and disturbing problem that universities, including my Ivy alma mater, are just beginning to grapple with.

Your point #1 is certainly true of admissions committees. It is not true of the Avery and Hoxby work, so they may be labeling kids as top prospects, when an Ivy League school wouldn't consider them adequately prepared.

Your point #2 is exactly what I'm getting at. It's not that it's right. You guys are all asking why promising low-SES kids aren't getting into these schools. This is why. Don't kill the messenger.

In terms of your point #3, the Avery and Hoxby work does find that these kids aren't applying. What I have personally observed is that they may be turned down when they do apply.

Part of the reality is that an A- average and SATs in the top ten percent (around 1300 for M+V) may only put you in the top half of the applicant pool for many of these schools. They only take the top 10 percent in some cases. That second cut is often made for non-academic reasons, because the top third of the pool is all 750+ SATs and 5's on AP tests, and it is easier for upper middle class people to know what's required to make it and to do what it takes.

[Anonymous]

NP here. Re point #1, colleges want kids who will be able to to the work. If they take a kid who is unprepared despite getting A's at a bad school, then everyone gets hurt: the kid who drops out, particularly if they have taken on student loans, and the college because their completion rates fall. We can cry crocodile tears for the college, but for the kid this is a very unfortunate outcome.

But I agree that the biggest problem is that kids don't apply.

IMO, part of the reason lower-income kids don't apply is that you need very low income to get a mostly-grant FA package, at least at most private universities. Pell Grants are about $5,500, which would help a lot at a state school but won't contribute very much towards $55,000 tuition at a private school. If you have household income north of $50K, you probably aren't going to qualify for much in the way of grant money. My guess is a lot of families look at this and decide that public universities are the way to go.

[Anonymous]

The point re judging the transcript based on the high school curriculum is descriptive, not prescriptive; this is what colleges and universities actually do.

[Anonymous]

From the NBER digest of the Avery-Hoxby paper:

The authors eliminate a number of explanations for low-income high achievers' failure to apply to selective colleges, including cost. They show that very selective colleges offer high-achieving, low-income students such generous financial aid that they could attend these colleges and pay less than they are currently paying to attend the much less selective colleges in which they enroll.

Nor do low-income high achievers fail if they apply to selective colleges. The authors show that if a low-income student and a high-income student with the same achievement apply to the same college, they have outcomes (matriculation, persistence, on-time graduation) that are so similar that they cannot be distinguished statistically.

[Anonymous]

Well, duh. I am from a middle-income bracket and attended a good but low-income public school, and the thought of applying to an Ivy wasn't really discussed. The best kids from my HS (in FL) went to UF and U Miami on scholarships.

I've since done well and run in circles with some of the people at the very top of the legal profession, with whatever pedigree you might name, and I've always felt that the top cohort of my HS was the equal of these people.

But, here's the thing: although we didn't apply to all the Ivies, we are all quite successful (there are a few clubs that are tough to break into without the right pedigrees, but you can be quite successful without those particular crests on your blazers). So, I guess, part of the point here is that the real losers of this system are the "top" universities. The high-achievers who achieve without mommy and daddy laying out a gold brick road continuing excelling after college. And with all respect to those of you in love with your diplimas, success AFTER school is supposed to be the goal.

[Anonymous]

^^^Excuse the typos. This is why I don't type work correspondence on a BlackBerry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point re judging the transcript based on the high school curriculum is descriptive, not prescriptive; this is what colleges and universities actually do.

Yes, it's what they actually do, but there may be a smidgen of logic behind their judgment. I'm afraid I'm going to be shot like the admissions person, but I'll go for it, with the big caveat that I think better public schools would be a big part of the solution to what comes next. Here goes (puts hands protectively in front of face). It's a tough call as to whether A's in a 3-rd rate high school gives a student the skills to write a short paper or two a week at the level required by a highly selective college.

So yes. Improve the public schools. Or let top students in failing schools transfer to better publics or even privates. Expand programs like the Posse programs that provide support once kids arrive at college. However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

+1. But maybe it all doesn't matter anyway. If the low SES students go to less competitive colleges, they should still do very well. And then they can apply for very competitive grad programs at elite schools and get the same kinds of jobs as those who are from higher SES brackets. And their children will be able to go directly to the competitive colleges from high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

3) Notwithstanding the above, if you look at the research by Avery and Hoxby, what's apparent is not that poor kids aren't well-qualified for admission to highly selective colleges and universities, but that they don't even apply. This is a significant and disturbing problem that universities, including my Ivy alma mater, are just beginning to grapple with.

This is what I've seen in my experience.

I went to a high school in a blue collar town. None of us applied to Ivy League schools. It didn't even occur to us that we were qualified for the Ivy League. I was a National Merit Scholar with a boatload of sports and clubs, all honors classes, a job, and very good ACT/SAT scores. There were two dozen other kids just as qualified at my high school . No one advising us had the slightest idea how to apply to an Ivy League school or why we should consider it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Re point #1, colleges want kids who will be able to to the work. If they take a kid who is unprepared despite getting A's at a bad school, then everyone gets hurt: the kid who drops out, particularly if they have taken on student loans, and the college because their completion rates fall. We can cry crocodile tears for the college, but for the kid this is a very unfortunate outcome.

But I agree that the biggest problem is that kids don't apply.

IMO, part of the reason lower-income kids don't apply is that you need very low income to get a mostly-grant FA package, at least at most private universities. Pell Grants are about $5,500, which would help a lot at a state school but won't contribute very much towards $55,000 tuition at a private school. If you have household income north of $50K, you probably aren't going to qualify for much in the way of grant money. My guess is a lot of families look at this and decide that public universities are the way to go.

Many of the top 10 schools will provide a boatload of grant aid. For my family, we'd probably be better off in our kids could get into an Ivy League school vs. a state school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you are thinking of Harvard in the 1950s, or you are just wrong. My kid is at an Ivy and there's no entitlement to a gentleman's B+ anymore. Some schools have reputations for being easier (hello, Harvard). But you will still flail if you can't write a research paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you are thinking of Harvard in the 1950s, or you are just wrong. My kid is at an Ivy and there's no entitlement to a gentleman's B+ anymore. Some schools have reputations for being easier (hello, Harvard). But you will still flail if you can't write a research paper.

Didn't some of the top schools eliminate grades and ranking? Maybe that is at the graduate level??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you are thinking of Harvard in the 1950s, or you are just wrong. My kid is at an Ivy and there's no entitlement to a gentleman's B+ anymore. Some schools have reputations for being easier (hello, Harvard). But you will still flail if you can't write a research paper.

(1) YOUR KID GOT IN TO AN IVY!!! I'M SOOO IMPRESSED! (This was the point of your post, I assume.)

(2) If you seriously think top performing kids from low performing areas "can't write a research paper," you need to get your head out of your hind region. "Writing a research paper" is not the same as invention cold-fusion, even if your perfect little snowflake insists it is and that you should send more money immediately because your LO has it SOOOOO hard. Also, it's not West Point.

(3) I see the worst writing from Ivy-leage grads. Absolutely dreadful. It doesn't mean I don't also see excellent writing from other Ivy-league grads--I do. But if they're using some writing litmus test in the Ivies, then they need to change the formula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you are thinking of Harvard in the 1950s, or you are just wrong. My kid is at an Ivy and there's no entitlement to a gentleman's B+ anymore. Some schools have reputations for being easier (hello, Harvard). But you will still flail if you can't write a research paper.

(1) YOUR KID GOT IN TO AN IVY!!! I'M SOOO IMPRESSED! (This was the point of your post, I assume.)

(2) If you seriously think top performing kids from low performing areas "can't write a research paper," you need to get your head out of your hind region. "Writing a research paper" is not the same as invention cold-fusion, even if your perfect little snowflake insists it is and that you should send more money immediately because your LO has it SOOOOO hard. Also, it's not West Point.

(3) I see the worst writing from Ivy-leage grads. Absolutely dreadful. It doesn't mean I don't also see excellent writing from other Ivy-league grads--I do. But if they're using some writing litmus test in the Ivies, then they need to change the formula.

Dear poster:

You are an idiot. You clearly don't have ANY understanding about the workload at a selective college, including Ivies. This doesn't disqualify you from having a happy successful life, but it TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES YOU from commenting on what it takes to succeed at a selective college. You clearly have NO CLUE. Which makes your bullying, insulting, pitiable insults even more OBNOXIOUS, NASTY AND STUPID. (Sorry for the caps, but you seem to think caps are necessary for communication, so I'm trying to help you out here.) I have a niece who pulled down straight As in a bad highschool in WVA, who never wrote a research paper.

If it helps, think Stanford, MIT, or top SLACs instead. Clearly you find the word "Ivy" very threatening, which says a lot about you, and distracts you from your ability to listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.

That's all I have to say to you, because you are an ignorant blowhard who blathers on about things you don't understand. Are you the Stony Brook bully by any chance? Buh bye!