Why apply to an Oberlin/Kenyon/Grinnell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

One would never say this in public, but what is the point of attending an elite institution if everyone there is from a disadvantaged low income background? This is especially true for students who come from the disadvantaged background. You want your roommate's dad to be a CEO, not just another guy drowning in debt.

Just to be clear: are you suggesting that it’s best for disadvantaged kids if elite schools accept fewer disadvantaged kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

One would never say this in public, but what is the point of attending an elite institution if everyone there is from a disadvantaged low income background? This is especially true for students who come from the disadvantaged background. You want your roommate's dad to be a CEO, not just another guy drowning in debt.

Just to be clear: are you suggesting that it’s best for disadvantaged kids if elite schools accept fewer disadvantaged kids?

There is a paradox, no? It's like diversity. If every kid is black or Hispanic, there is no more diversity. So there is a tipping point.

[Anonymous]

Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

Denison plays this game where they waitlist kids while simultaneously offering them merit scholarships if they were to accept. Denison’s acceptance rate is sus. With an average ACT score two points lower than Kenyon, it doesn’t make sense to think of them as equally selective. They are attracting a less competitive pool of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

One would never say this in public, but what is the point of attending an elite institution if everyone there is from a disadvantaged low income background? This is especially true for students who come from the disadvantaged background. You want your roommate's dad to be a CEO, not just another guy drowning in debt.

I don't think there is any risk of *everyone* being from a disadvantaged low income background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

US News methodology emphasizes Kenyon’s weak spot, which is a lack of resources to devote to low income students.

No, this is a strong point! Nobody wants their kid to be around (ugh) poors.

You laugh--but honestly this is how the wealthy who go to LACs seem to be going now--moving away from USNWR and more towards where there are a decent-sized communities of other wealthy kids. If you look at the NYTimes Upshot article on the schools with a high percentage of students in the 1%, those schools map on pretty well with the LACs I see being popular among the very well-off set. I wonder how this is all going to play out societally. Kenyon has a really high percentage of very well-off families. It's in the top 10 of all schools in this regard.

One would never say this in public, but what is the point of attending an elite institution if everyone there is from a disadvantaged low income background? This is especially true for students who come from the disadvantaged background. You want your roommate's dad to be a CEO, not just another guy drowning in debt.

I don't think there is any risk of *everyone* being from a disadvantaged low income background.

You don’t have to be so literal. Jeez. The point is if a school is predominantly comprised of kids from a disadvantaged background, the disadvantaged kids are not benefiting from networking with advantaged kids from advantaged families. Some of these “elite” schools now have 2/3 of students receiving on average vast amounts of need based aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.

But if it's a right, everyone should have it equally. That's my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.

But if it's a right, everyone should have it equally. That's my point.

You have the right to apply to college and not have your race taken into account when they decide to admit you or not. That is the extent of your rights. I suppose if anyone is privileged it would be the students who don’t have to pay for services rendered, or more accurately the students whose costs are covered by the parents of the other students who do have to pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.

But if it's a right, everyone should have it equally. That's my point.

You have the right to apply to college and not have your race taken into account when they decide to admit you or not. That is the extent of your rights. I suppose if anyone is privileged it would be the students who don’t have to pay for services rendered, or more accurately the students whose costs are covered by the parents of the other students who do have to pay.

You missed my point.

There are many, many, kids who deserve good things in life, all those wonderful things that money can buy, large and small -- from homes full of books to SAT tutors, from healthy meals and streets safe from violence to a great school district with terrific college counselors -- and who would make the most of these things if they had access to them. We live in a world where a lot of deserving kids don't get these things.

I'm not saying the kids who get the good things don't deserve them. I'm saying many kids who *don't* get them also happen to deserve them. So if lots of kids deserve them, and only some get them, then some are privileged in ways others are not.

I understand that you hear a negative connotation in the word, and that it feels "toxic" to you. But the alternative is believing that the kids who don't have good things, so aren't able make the most of them, must not deserve them. That seems a whole lot more toxic to me.

This is now devolving into every other argument on the internet, and I suspect neither of us has time to rehash arguments that have already been made ad nauseum elsewhere. So I'll bid you goodnight and wish you well. Good luck to your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.

But if it's a right, everyone should have it equally. That's my point.

You have the right to apply to college and not have your race taken into account when they decide to admit you or not. That is the extent of your rights. I suppose if anyone is privileged it would be the students who don’t have to pay for services rendered, or more accurately the students whose costs are covered by the parents of the other students who do have to pay.

You missed my point.

There are many, many, kids who deserve good things in life, all those wonderful things that money can buy, large and small -- from homes full of books to SAT tutors, from healthy meals and streets safe from violence to a great school district with terrific college counselors -- and who would make the most of these things if they had access to them. We live in a world where a lot of deserving kids don't get these things.

I'm not saying the kids who get the good things don't deserve them. I'm saying many kids who *don't* get them also happen to deserve them. So if lots of kids deserve them, and only some get them, then some are privileged in ways others are not.

I understand that you hear a negative connotation in the word, and that it feels "toxic" to you. But the alternative is believing that the kids who don't have good things, so aren't able make the most of them, must not deserve them. That seems a whole lot more toxic to me.

This is now devolving into every other argument on the internet, and I suspect neither of us has time to rehash arguments that have already been made ad nauseum elsewhere. So I'll bid you goodnight and wish you well. Good luck to your kids.

Fortunate yes. Privileged no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Princeton Review Selectivity Ratings:

Grinnell 97
Denison 95
Kenyon 95
Oberlin 94

Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.

We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.

It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.

I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.

But if it's a right, everyone should have it equally. That's my point.

You have the right to apply to college and not have your race taken into account when they decide to admit you or not. That is the extent of your rights. I suppose if anyone is privileged it would be the students who don’t have to pay for services rendered, or more accurately the students whose costs are covered by the parents of the other students who do have to pay.

You missed my point.

There are many, many, kids who deserve good things in life, all those wonderful things that money can buy, large and small -- from homes full of books to SAT tutors, from healthy meals and streets safe from violence to a great school district with terrific college counselors -- and who would make the most of these things if they had access to them. We live in a world where a lot of deserving kids don't get these things.

I'm not saying the kids who get the good things don't deserve them. I'm saying many kids who *don't* get them also happen to deserve them. So if lots of kids deserve them, and only some get them, then some are privileged in ways others are not.

I understand that you hear a negative connotation in the word, and that it feels "toxic" to you. But the alternative is believing that the kids who don't have good things, so aren't able make the most of them, must not deserve them. That seems a whole lot more toxic to me.

This is now devolving into every other argument on the internet, and I suspect neither of us has time to rehash arguments that have already been made ad nauseum elsewhere. So I'll bid you goodnight and wish you well. Good luck to your kids.

+1

The PP says this very nicely. I looked at schools like these very wistfully when I was young. I would absolutely have loved to have attended one. My parents were wealthy (meaning I didn't get FA) but were never going to help me with college in any way at all. Not financially, not emotionally, and not logistically. They thought tertiary education was wasted on women and discouraged me from thinking about college. I left home as soon as I turned 18 and eventually put myself through a local public university while working. It was very important to me to pay for my kids' college educations, to encourage them to go to good schools, and to take them to visit several colleges and universities. I consider my children privileged (and that's a good thing). Very few kids go to schools like these unless they have supportive parents who are prepared to help them.