Update from an Alumna of this Group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fine, but it s isn't interesting.
I'm waiting for someone to post "I spent $250K (or $500K) on a school and it was a huge mistake.

If you can't get good value out of $250K, you are hopeless.

Seriously. This thread is basically "I just wanted to post here and let you all know that I'm feeling pretty good about being wealthy and privileged. I considered the alternative, and I really think I came to the right decision to not be poor."

Bingo. OP's post is nauseating. I say this as a private school parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Duh.
Why is this news to you.
We all know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keep telling yourself that. Full pay really isn't a hook at schools admitting under 10 percent of applicants (and also happen to give significant financial aid).

It's not about hooks. It's about applying.

Our high-performing DC (Blair SMCS/1600 SAT/Nationally recognized for musical instrument) didn't apply to any elite schools because we can't pay for them. Went to UMD-CP Honors program, graduated summa cum laude. Fast-forward, DC is in a fully-funded PhD program at an Ivy League school.

There are lots of students like DC out there who never consider applying to elite schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep telling yourself that. Full pay really isn't a hook at schools admitting under 10 percent of applicants (and also happen to give significant financial aid).

It's not about hooks. It's about applying.

Our high-performing DC (Blair SMCS/1600 SAT/Nationally recognized for musical instrument) didn't apply to any elite schools because we can't pay for them. Went to UMD-CP Honors program, graduated summa cum laude. Fast-forward, DC is in a fully-funded PhD program at an Ivy League school.

There are lots of students like DC out there who never consider applying to elite schools.

That only strengthens my argument that being full pay isn't a hook. If others aren't applying due to cost, and yet the applicant pool has a significant percentage of full pay families, why are the admission rates still in the single digits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep telling yourself that. Full pay really isn't a hook at schools admitting under 10 percent of applicants (and also happen to give significant financial aid).

It's not about hooks. It's about applying.

Our high-performing DC (Blair SMCS/1600 SAT/Nationally recognized for musical instrument) didn't apply to any elite schools because we can't pay for them. Went to UMD-CP Honors program, graduated summa cum laude. Fast-forward, DC is in a fully-funded PhD program at an Ivy League school.

There are lots of students like DC out there who never consider applying to elite schools.

That only strengthens my argument that being full pay isn't a hook. If others aren't applying due to cost, and yet the applicant pool has a significant percentage of full pay families, why are the admission rates still in the single digits?

It does show that kids from wealthy families are more likely to apply and get in. Because they can afford it, not because they are actually so much better, as so many parents like OP like to think.

But as that study shows, college admissions in the US is so much influenced by money, it’s not possible to have a level playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

If a family of 4+, earning less than $120,000/year, lives in or near DC (or any other metropolitan area), they are poor. They will have the same/similar options as families earning $90,000/year. They aren’t really able to choose where to live, educate their children, or access high quality healthcare. They are limited by their low(er) income. These are also the students who are the least likely be admitted to Ivy+ colleges because of the socioeconomic hurdles they have to clear. Once admitted, they are the least likely to graduate. That’s why rich, highly selective colleges can offer such generous financial aid to this low income group. They are a tiny percentage of the overall school population.

Once again, those are not the people (including you) posting here. Your middle/upper middle class public school kid is not the target demographic of which we speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

Btw, what does tuition-free really mean if your family is earning less than $120,000 per year? Who is paying for room and board? Who is paying for you to get to and from Stanford and Harvard? Who is paying for your books, additional/unspecified fees, and providing spending money? Do you think that families earning less than $120,000/year have a spare $15,000 to $20,000 per year under their mattresses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

Btw, what does tuition-free really mean if your family is earning less than $120,000 per year? Who is paying for room and board? Who is paying for you to get to and from Stanford and Harvard? Who is paying for your books, additional/unspecified fees, and providing spending money? Do you think that families earning less than $120,000/year have a spare $15,000 to $20,000 per year under their mattresses?

Harvard is completely free for families making $85,000 or less. So it's only those who make between that and $120,000 who have to pay for room and board, and I suspect even then they're not having to pay full price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

Btw, what does tuition-free really mean if your family is earning less than $120,000 per year? Who is paying for room and board? Who is paying for you to get to and from Stanford and Harvard? Who is paying for your books, additional/unspecified fees, and providing spending money? Do you think that families earning less than $120,000/year have a spare $15,000 to $20,000 per year under their mattresses?

Harvard is completely free for families making $85,000 or less. So it's only those who make between that and $120,000 who have to pay for room and board, and I suspect even then they're not having to pay full price.

It’s free because if your family makes less than $85k/year, you’re poor! That’s not your public school kid, though. Further, most of the poor kids receiving free tuition at Harvard & Co. have received a more academically rigorous and elite education than your children. Allow me to introduce you to the “privileged poor”:

“Despite their lofty aspirations, top colleges hedge their bets by recruiting their new diversity largely from the same old sources, admitting scores of lower-income black, Latino, and white undergraduates from elite private high schools like Exeter and Andover. These students approach their new campuses very differently from students who attended local, and typically troubled, public high schools and are often left to flounder on their own.”

https://anthonyabrahamjack.com/ibili

“My research shows that, on average, half of the lower-income black undergraduates at elite colleges today come from private high schools like Andover and Dalton. As early as middle school (and sometimes sooner), students participate in programs like Prep for Prep and A Better Chance.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/what-the-privileged-poor-can-teach-us.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ This is a quote from the same article:

“Children of the top one percent, earning more than $611,000 a year, are significantly overrepresented in the Ivy League — more likely to attend selective private colleges than students from any other income bracket with comparable SAT and ACT scores.”

Have you actually read the Opportunity Insights study cited in the article? Look at Figure 3 and tell me how the lower income brackets are doing in admissions relative to those outside the top 0.1 percent.
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf

DP. Did you actually read the 2-part post you’re responding to. If you read both posts, you’ll see that you’re saying the same thing (e.g., impoverished students (Pell grant recipients and the like) do slightly less well than the top 1%). It’s those in the top 5-10% income bracket that fare the worst.

Which group do you think is most likely to send their children to public school AND is also responding to this thread? Pell grant recipients, the top 5-10%, or the top 1%?

LOL, you aren't reading the study carefully either. Of course the top 1 percent does the best. But are you claiming that those families in the 20th to 90th income percentiles, which all do better than the top 5 to 10 percent, are all "impoverished"? If not, then your statement is pointless.

Families at the 90th income percentile earn approximately $210,000 (as a household). Look at Figure 3 carefully.
Students from households that make between the 70th to 95th income percentiles fare about the same in college admissions, at Ivy+ schools (which is to say, not great). You have to drop below the 70th percentile to start to see the “poverty bump.” I would say that the vast majority of families that live in/near cities, that fall at or below the 70th income percentile (less than $120,000/year household income), are working poor. Even then, the poverty bump isn’t significant until you reach the 20th to 60th income percentile ($30,000 to $90,000/year household income). For a family, that’s poor. Those people are not posting on this thread. Your public school children won’t benefit from this.

By your definition, 70 percent of families in this country are poor or in poverty? In any case, HYPS is tuition-free for them. For example, Harvard is tuition-free for families making $150,000 or less (i.e., including those above the 70th percentile). Stanford is completely free for families making $100,000 or less.

If a family of 4+, earning less than $120,000/year, lives in or near DC (or any other metropolitan area), they are poor. They will have the same/similar options as families earning $90,000/year. They aren’t really able to choose where to live, educate their children, or access high quality healthcare. They are limited by their low(er) income. These are also the students who are the least likely be admitted to Ivy+ colleges because of the socioeconomic hurdles they have to clear. Once admitted, they are the least likely to graduate. That’s why rich, highly selective colleges can offer such generous financial aid to this low income group. They are a tiny percentage of the overall school population.

Once again, those are not the people (including you) posting here. Your middle/upper middle class public school kid is not the target demographic of which we speak.

Congratulations, you just described 60 percent of MCPS families as poor.
https://statisticalatlas.com/school-district/Maryland/Montgomery-County-Public-Schools/Household-Income