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:
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.




THIS^^^^

People need to recognize they are NOT Entitled to an Elite/T25 education. Just like most things in life, there will be plenty of things you can't afford or are unable to do. Life is about choices. Luckily with college, there are literally over 4000 universities in this country, many many many of them are affordable to most people. SO the great news is anyone who wants it can get a good education.
VA has over 10 great public universities, all but 3 (W&M, UVA, VATech) of them are accessible to most good students and many excellent CC that can be an extremely affordable path towards a 4 year degree.


The reason people don’t realize this is that some of the smartest, richest, and most influential institutions in the country work very hard to convince everyone that the elite universities represent “the best of the best.” If these universities openly said “we are playgrounds for the super rich, a few others will be admitted by lottery” they would be far less coveted.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Wrong. Your ignorance is stunning and hilarious.

The vast majority (85%) of male college athletes play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, cross country / track, and wrestling. These are not rich kid sports. Lacrosse, Golf, Hockey, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo etc. are only 15%. And I don't even agree you have to be wealthy to play lacrosse (which is most of the 15%) so that's being generous to your argument.

The number of athletes in "very expensive" sports is totally trivial. Fencing (about 1,400 men and women), Sailing (about 1,600 men and women), Equestrian (about 2,000 men and women), Squash (about 1,000 men and women).

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds



Lax is a rich kid sport. Youth lacrosse is built on a pay-to-play model and clubs are often all about the $$ since they don't have much outside support like many do in basketball and soccer.

I see what you were thinking though. You were mostly tying expense to equipment costs, which just isn't right.
You also have to remember that large portions of some teams are not American.

The group that is arguably discriminated against more than any other is the non-full-pay international applicants. Even many elite schools are not need blind in their review.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Wrong. Your ignorance is stunning and hilarious.

The vast majority (85%) of male college athletes play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, cross country / track, and wrestling. These are not rich kid sports. Lacrosse, Golf, Hockey, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo etc. are only 15%. And I don't even agree you have to be wealthy to play lacrosse (which is most of the 15%) so that's being generous to your argument.

The number of athletes in "very expensive" sports is totally trivial. Fencing (about 1,400 men and women), Sailing (about 1,600 men and women), Equestrian (about 2,000 men and women), Squash (about 1,000 men and women).

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds



Lax is a rich kid sport. Youth lacrosse is built on a pay-to-play model and clubs are often all about the $$ since they don't have much outside support like many do in basketball and soccer.

I see what you were thinking though. You were mostly tying expense to equipment costs, which just isn't right.
You also have to remember that large portions of some teams are not American.

The group that is arguably discriminated against more than any other is the non-full-pay international applicants. Even many elite schools are not need blind in their review.


Hate to break it to you, but soccer is also very much a rich person sport. It is the original 'pay-to-play' model of youth sports in the US. The top teams---parents are paying close to $5k/year flat fee ---not including all the traveling--extensive traveling, fees for charter buses or flights, hotel rooms, etc. Then, most kids at this level are also paying for outside training. It is a ton of $.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Wrong. Your ignorance is stunning and hilarious.

The vast majority (85%) of male college athletes play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, cross country / track, and wrestling. These are not rich kid sports. Lacrosse, Golf, Hockey, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo etc. are only 15%. And I don't even agree you have to be wealthy to play lacrosse (which is most of the 15%) so that's being generous to your argument.

The number of athletes in "very expensive" sports is totally trivial. Fencing (about 1,400 men and women), Sailing (about 1,600 men and women), Equestrian (about 2,000 men and women), Squash (about 1,000 men and women).

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds



You think a kid can be a D1 lacrosse (or soccer, for that matter) recruit without having played club & attended camps?
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/...y/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.


+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.


The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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/...y/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.


+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.


The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.



s0 YEAH--the families busting @ss in high cost living areas making $160k are rightly pissed they are paying $360k for a 4-year BS/BA degree when over 52% of the kids in their child's class are paying $0.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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/...y/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.


+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.


The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.



s0 YEAH--the families busting @ss in high cost living areas making $160k are rightly pissed they are paying $360k for a 4-year BS/BA degree when over 52% of the kids in their child's class are paying $0.


And is a nutshell this is why the 1% are over-represented compared to the 60-90%.
Anonymous
^those kids--no matter how high their GPA is or their test scores have to go in-state due to cost. Their parents won't justify private tuition over in-state.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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/...y/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.


+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.


The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.



So move to NC and drop your salary below that level if you think that's the right approach. You too would not have to pay a dime for tuition.

I know what universities cost---got a full pay at a $85K school currently. Kid wouldn't be there if we were not able to fully save for it. There are plenty of options that cost much less than $90K/year for college. My kid could have attended our state flagship for $12K tuition per year (T60 school--kid was admitted with $4K scholarship) or 2-3 other state schools for only $6K tuition. There are many excellent and affordable choices.

Just like if I cannot afford a BMW I don't buy one, kids do not need an expensive college education to do well in life. If you can afford it great, but if not, then find what is affordable.
Anonymous
^ and the entire premise of the article zipped right over your head.

It was about making it so not just the rich could attend these elite institutions. But, you just are confirming that point.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Wrong. Your ignorance is stunning and hilarious.

The vast majority (85%) of male college athletes play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, cross country / track, and wrestling. These are not rich kid sports. Lacrosse, Golf, Hockey, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo etc. are only 15%. And I don't even agree you have to be wealthy to play lacrosse (which is most of the 15%) so that's being generous to your argument.

The number of athletes in "very expensive" sports is totally trivial. Fencing (about 1,400 men and women), Sailing (about 1,600 men and women), Equestrian (about 2,000 men and women), Squash (about 1,000 men and women).

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds



Lax is a rich kid sport. Youth lacrosse is built on a pay-to-play model and clubs are often all about the $$ since they don't have much outside support like many do in basketball and soccer.

I see what you were thinking though. You were mostly tying expense to equipment costs, which just isn't right.
You also have to remember that large portions of some teams are not American.

The group that is arguably discriminated against more than any other is the non-full-pay international applicants. Even many elite schools are not need blind in their review.


My kid plays lacrosse. I know for a fact that it’s not a rich kid sport. Club lacrosse is not out of reach for ordinary people. Try again!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Wrong. Your ignorance is stunning and hilarious.

The vast majority (85%) of male college athletes play baseball, basketball, football, soccer, cross country / track, and wrestling. These are not rich kid sports. Lacrosse, Golf, Hockey, Tennis, Volleyball, Water Polo etc. are only 15%. And I don't even agree you have to be wealthy to play lacrosse (which is most of the 15%) so that's being generous to your argument.

The number of athletes in "very expensive" sports is totally trivial. Fencing (about 1,400 men and women), Sailing (about 1,600 men and women), Equestrian (about 2,000 men and women), Squash (about 1,000 men and women).

https://scholarshipstats.com/varsityodds



You think a kid can be a D1 lacrosse (or soccer, for that matter) recruit without having played club & attended camps?


You don’t need to be in the top 1% to afford it, or even the top 10%.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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/...y/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.


+1

Always amazes me at the DCUM people complaining that they make $175K and how terrible it is that they can't afford college, when there are plenty of people living on $65-75K. If college is important to you, then you can find a way to save. If you were making $100K 10 years ago and now make $175K, then you could have been saving that extra amount each year and not let your lifestyle increase. Instead you played keeping up with the Joneses.


The people making 175k are 100% full pay. Private universities like in this article are approaching $90k PER YEAR. $360K FOR AN UNDERGRAD degree--more than a house in most areas of the US.

People making $65-75k will be able to attend need-blind schools FREE. Ivies will be free. If you live in North Carolina and some other states--in state tuition is completely free. Anyone making under $150k in NC no longer has to pay a single dime for tuition in NC.



s0 YEAH--the families busting @ss in high cost living areas making $160k are rightly pissed they are paying $360k for a 4-year BS/BA degree when over 52% of the kids in their child's class are paying $0.


And is a nutshell this is why the 1% are over-represented compared to the 60-90%.


I think you are suggesting that the NYT graph reflects students choosing to apply to different schools or attend different schools based on cost. But that isn’t what the NYT analysis finds. It finds that among those who applied, the odds of being admitted are very different based on income percentile, after controlling for SAT scores, academic achievements, and application rates. This is purely about the decisions schools make, not decisions students are making about where to apply or attend.
Anonymous
My HHI is right at that lowest dot— around 93%. So inspiring for my rising senior!
Anonymous
It’s why if your kid is waitlisted at certain schools - and you are not full pay - your kid won’t be taken of the WL ever (e.g, wake forest)….
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: