Wealth, privilege and college admissions

[Anonymous]

“…It became clearer and clearer to me that the admissions gold mine was a male student who didn’t need any financial aid. I saw so many of them. Some were actually good and deserving students. But others fit a similarly bleak profile: students with mediocre grades from fancy private schools, with a year of postgrad at prep school to make their GPAs less frightful-looking. Hockey recruits. Lacrosse recruits. Basketball recruits. If these were full-pay kids, they were more likely than not to be admitted. Even though I scored them accurately and fairly according to our guidelines, and even when I wrote scathing rejection notes, I knew in my gut that most of them were going to get in anyway, the same way I knew that some of the poorer students for whom I fiercely advocated were not. It all came down to the limited number of spots for students who need financial aid. If a student could pay full tuition, he was immediately more desirable. (Even though we were specifically looking to beef up the number of men admitted, full-pay, mediocre white girls could sometimes skate by too.)”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/anonymousadmissions/college-admissions-scam-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“…It became clearer and clearer to me that the admissions gold mine was a male student who didn’t need any financial aid. I saw so many of them. Some were actually good and deserving students. But others fit a similarly bleak profile: students with mediocre grades from fancy private schools, with a year of postgrad at prep school to make their GPAs less frightful-looking. Hockey recruits. Lacrosse recruits. Basketball recruits. If these were full-pay kids, they were more likely than not to be admitted. Even though I scored them accurately and fairly according to our guidelines, and even when I wrote scathing rejection notes, I knew in my gut that most of them were going to get in anyway, the same way I knew that some of the poorer students for whom I fiercely advocated were not. It all came down to the limited number of spots for students who need financial aid. If a student could pay full tuition, he was immediately more desirable. (Even though we were specifically looking to beef up the number of men admitted, full-pay, mediocre white girls could sometimes skate by too.)”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/anonymousadmissions/college-admissions-scam-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-ivy

Being need blind in name only is the whole basis for the 568 coalition lawsuit. I really hope it goes on long enough for more discovery to become public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“…It became clearer and clearer to me that the admissions gold mine was a male student who didn’t need any financial aid. I saw so many of them. Some were actually good and deserving students. But others fit a similarly bleak profile: students with mediocre grades from fancy private schools, with a year of postgrad at prep school to make their GPAs less frightful-looking. Hockey recruits. Lacrosse recruits. Basketball recruits. If these were full-pay kids, they were more likely than not to be admitted. Even though I scored them accurately and fairly according to our guidelines, and even when I wrote scathing rejection notes, I knew in my gut that most of them were going to get in anyway, the same way I knew that some of the poorer students for whom I fiercely advocated were not. It all came down to the limited number of spots for students who need financial aid. If a student could pay full tuition, he was immediately more desirable. (Even though we were specifically looking to beef up the number of men admitted, full-pay, mediocre white girls could sometimes skate by too.)”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/anonymousadmissions/college-admissions-scam-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-ivy

Being need blind in name only is the whole basis for the 568 coalition lawsuit. I really hope it goes on long enough for more discovery to become public

These schools could never afford to be fully need blind, they need some tuition to survive and they need kids who are likely to make a lot of money and give donations as alumni. That’s why legacy preference isn’t going away at the Ivys unless the issue is forced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy almost 30 years ago, I was surprised to learn this year that the class one of my kids is applying to is going to be exactly the same size as my class. With a huge increase in international admissions and population growth in the US there is a much bigger pool of talent for the same very small number of spots. Even as an alum I don’t understand why these schools carry so much weight given how little of our country they serve.

Surprised? You’re in for lots of surprises if you don’t start engaging with the Google machine a little more about the college landscape today.

[Anonymous]

The poor kids usually have to work hard manual labor jobs and work and not have privileged networks post graduation. Rich kids have to just worry about school and their extracurricular. In the end the poor kids who worked full time and went to school full time will have a life time of debt and difficulty getting top jobs. The rich pricks will have more fun, no debt, no part ime job in school and will go straight to the too without experience. Welcome to America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Yale graduate. I was a regular middle class kid from a public high school (both my parents were teachers, so maybe on the lower edge of upper middle class). I had a very good experience at Yale, got good grades, married a classmate, went to an R1 state university for my PhD, and I have a nice professional life.

Most of my friends from Yale are like me. MC or UMC kids who became professionals. We mostly married each other and we have nice lives.

But, there was another Yale that we had nothing to do with. The Yale that was filled with rich, well-connected kids who all knew each other from prep schools, summer camps, country clubs. They pretty much hung out with each other at Yale and with their high school friends from other colleges. After graduation, they got jobs through connections, worked for family companies, married each other. Where they went to college didn’t really matter. The ones from Yale and the ones who went to Michigan or Emory are all still rich and all still friends.

If your kid wants to go to an Ivy, that is a nice dream and they should pursue it. But, it’s not likely to be transformational. Upper middle class kids are mostly going to become upper middle class adults. Rich, well-connected kids are mostly going to become rich, well-connected adults. A few from each group will float up or down.

I don’t get the obsession with who gets into the Ivy League schools. That is not where class change happens. A Yale full of nice upper middle class kids will mostly produce professionals and academics but not an outsized number of the rich or powerful in society. That is fine but I’m not sure it’s worth fighting each other over.

Do you think this is more because you chose a phd instead of an MBA or even law school? Of course a PhD isn’t going to land you the lucrative investment banking job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the majority of smartest kids will eventually attend flagship state schools. Ivies will be a thing of the past.

Ivies will remain what it was back before the 1960s -- well connected, mostly very wealthy white families. The very brightest, not connected families will end up in the big flagships.

I think that's where we're heading. Even the bulk professional class is starting to get priced out now. Harvard will be filled with very rich kids, very poor kids, and kids whose parents are willing to go deep into debt

+1000

This is it. The removal of affirmative action is doing to have domino effects that very few want to acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Yale graduate. I was a regular middle class kid from a public high school (both my parents were teachers, so maybe on the lower edge of upper middle class). I had a very good experience at Yale, got good grades, married a classmate, went to an R1 state university for my PhD, and I have a nice professional life.

Most of my friends from Yale are like me. MC or UMC kids who became professionals. We mostly married each other and we have nice lives.

But, there was another Yale that we had nothing to do with. The Yale that was filled with rich, well-connected kids who all knew each other from prep schools, summer camps, country clubs. They pretty much hung out with each other at Yale and with their high school friends from other colleges. After graduation, they got jobs through connections, worked for family companies, married each other. Where they went to college didn’t really matter. The ones from Yale and the ones who went to Michigan or Emory are all still rich and all still friends.

If your kid wants to go to an Ivy, that is a nice dream and they should pursue it. But, it’s not likely to be transformational. Upper middle class kids are mostly going to become upper middle class adults. Rich, well-connected kids are mostly going to become rich, well-connected adults. A few from each group will float up or down.

I don’t get the obsession with who gets into the Ivy League schools. That is not where class change happens. A Yale full of nice upper middle class kids will mostly produce professionals and academics but not an outsized number of the rich or powerful in society. That is fine but I’m not sure it’s worth fighting each other over.

I went to Dartmouth and this is spot on. A few people crossed boundaries due to sports teams but most of us stayed with the social classes we were born into and are now UMC professionals.

You also get the lucky few guys and gals who are able to mate and marry into wealth. Rare, but it does happen.

I've seen this happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Yale graduate. I was a regular middle class kid from a public high school (both my parents were teachers, so maybe on the lower edge of upper middle class). I had a very good experience at Yale, got good grades, married a classmate, went to an R1 state university for my PhD, and I have a nice professional life.

Most of my friends from Yale are like me. MC or UMC kids who became professionals. We mostly married each other and we have nice lives.

But, there was another Yale that we had nothing to do with. The Yale that was filled with rich, well-connected kids who all knew each other from prep schools, summer camps, country clubs. They pretty much hung out with each other at Yale and with their high school friends from other colleges. After graduation, they got jobs through connections, worked for family companies, married each other. Where they went to college didn’t really matter. The ones from Yale and the ones who went to Michigan or Emory are all still rich and all still friends.

If your kid wants to go to an Ivy, that is a nice dream and they should pursue it. But, it’s not likely to be transformational. Upper middle class kids are mostly going to become upper middle class adults. Rich, well-connected kids are mostly going to become rich, well-connected adults. A few from each group will float up or down.

I don’t get the obsession with who gets into the Ivy League schools. That is not where class change happens. A Yale full of nice upper middle class kids will mostly produce professionals and academics but not an outsized number of the rich or powerful in society. That is fine but I’m not sure it’s worth fighting each other over.

I went to Dartmouth and this is spot on. A few people crossed boundaries due to sports teams but most of us stayed with the social classes we were born into and are now UMC professionals.

Someone who went to HYPS here and agree. Athletics and engineering were the only real driver of class change that I saw. Hardworking good athletes did extremely well after college. Engineering students also changed course.

But otherwise, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Yale graduate. I was a regular middle class kid from a public high school (both my parents were teachers, so maybe on the lower edge of upper middle class). I had a very good experience at Yale, got good grades, married a classmate, went to an R1 state university for my PhD, and I have a nice professional life.

Most of my friends from Yale are like me. MC or UMC kids who became professionals. We mostly married each other and we have nice lives.

But, there was another Yale that we had nothing to do with. The Yale that was filled with rich, well-connected kids who all knew each other from prep schools, summer camps, country clubs. They pretty much hung out with each other at Yale and with their high school friends from other colleges. After graduation, they got jobs through connections, worked for family companies, married each other. Where they went to college didn’t really matter. The ones from Yale and the ones who went to Michigan or Emory are all still rich and all still friends.

If your kid wants to go to an Ivy, that is a nice dream and they should pursue it. But, it’s not likely to be transformational. Upper middle class kids are mostly going to become upper middle class adults. Rich, well-connected kids are mostly going to become rich, well-connected adults. A few from each group will float up or down.

I don’t get the obsession with who gets into the Ivy League schools. That is not where class change happens. A Yale full of nice upper middle class kids will mostly produce professionals and academics but not an outsized number of the rich or powerful in society. That is fine but I’m not sure it’s worth fighting each other over.

I went to Dartmouth and this is spot on. A few people crossed boundaries due to sports teams but most of us stayed with the social classes we were born into and are now UMC professionals.

You also get the lucky few guys and gals who are able to mate and marry into wealth. Rare, but it does happen.

I've seen this happen.

+1. I went to Williams and saw the same. Always sports related, but few and far between.

[Anonymous]

The truth is for a lot of these schools, the athletics program is by far the greatest driver of class mobility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the majority of smartest kids will eventually attend flagship state schools. Ivies will be a thing of the past.

Ivies will remain what it was back before the 1960s -- well connected, mostly very wealthy white families. The very brightest, not connected families will end up in the big flagships.

I think that's where we're heading. Even the bulk professional class is starting to get priced out now. Harvard will be filled with very rich kids, very poor kids, and kids whose parents are willing to go deep into debt

Yes. Schools like Harvard and Yale will effectively become country clubs that run a charity for underprivileged students. Their value and reputation in the public perception will decline over time. The genuine talent will go to other schools - as they already do. But it won't matter to Harvard or Yale because their primary function is to provide networking opportunities for the rich. Wealth begets wealth. And it will continue to self-perpetuate. Socially and intellectually they will whither into mediocrity, which is already happening. But Harvard will always rule Wall Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the majority of smartest kids will eventually attend flagship state schools. Ivies will be a thing of the past.

Ivies will remain what it was back before the 1960s -- well connected, mostly very wealthy white families. The very brightest, not connected families will end up in the big flagships.

I think that's where we're heading. Even the bulk professional class is starting to get priced out now. Harvard will be filled with very rich kids, very poor kids, and kids whose parents are willing to go deep into debt

Yes. Schools like Harvard and Yale will effectively become country clubs that run a charity for underprivileged students. Their value and reputation in the public perception will decline over time. The genuine talent will go to other schools - as they already do. But it won't matter to Harvard or Yale because their primary function is to provide networking opportunities for the rich. Wealth begets wealth. And it will continue to self-perpetuate. Socially and intellectually they will whither into mediocrity, which is already happening. But Harvard will always rule Wall Street.

Harvard’s reputation has been withering for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are going to see more and more reports like this, and school like the Big 3 are going to take college admissions hit as a result. It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. Slowly but surely, it will happen.

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/08/07/georgetown-admissions-advantage-report

I doubt it. Because the big 3 are dominated by wealthy kids. Going to elite colleges. Why would that change? The reports just revealed what was already long known, if unofficially.

Are you dense? Being “long known” is one thing. Being talked about and criticized in the open is another. There will be more and more pressure on colleges to rethink how they evaluate candidates, especially with the demise of race-based admissions. This will only hurt, not help, private school applications.

It’s kinda cool.

It will not change. Someone has to pay for college. These students do. No I do not think there will be any hit. If anything I think this group will grow for most colleges not shrink.

Only if the market crashes. Endowments have ballooned in the past couple of years. If anything, schools now have more freedom to ignore wealth in admissions.

So you actually think that colleges with large endowments are going to “ignore wealth in admissions”? If so, you are incredibly naive.

They are more free to now than ever ever before. MIT JHU CMU and Amherst have already made that decision.

A few schools have/will eliminate legacy admissions. Many won’t. That has nothing to do with the size of the endowments. These schools will continue to disproportionately admit wealthy students (legacy or not).

The schools doing it are the ones who can afford to and it is because their endowments are big enough to support increased financial aid.

the elite schools have enough endowment to at least lower the COA. But they won't, and use the "but we need rich people to pay for the poor" excuse to keep legacy alive.

[Anonymous]

Keep dreaming.