Is being low income at a top private an advantage this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My cousin's kid needed significant aid but wasn't "low income." Dad didn't go to college, mom went to an absolute no name school that I don't think even exists anymore. So the kid was hosed - not "low income" enough and not "first generation" even though for all intents and purposes they were. Struck out at all good privates despite very good grades, scores and XCs. Ended up in honors program at a good but not great in-state public.

TL/DR the obsession with social engineering and the guidelines for it have gone completely overboard and aren't doing what they are meant to do.

Yeah, not sure you are making your point here: this kid had "very good grades, scores, and XCs". Most kids with that profile strike out at top universities. There are likely others with similar backgrounds to him who had GREAT scores, grades, etc, who were accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My cousin's kid needed significant aid but wasn't "low income." Dad didn't go to college, mom went to an absolute no name school that I don't think even exists anymore. So the kid was hosed - not "low income" enough and not "first generation" even though for all intents and purposes they were. Struck out at all good privates despite very good grades, scores and XCs. Ended up in honors program at a good but not great in-state public.

TL/DR the obsession with social engineering and the guidelines for it have gone completely overboard and aren't doing what they are meant to do.

Yeah, not sure you are making your point here: this kid had "very good grades, scores, and XCs". Most kids with that profile strike out at top universities. There are likely others with similar backgrounds to him who had GREAT scores, grades, etc, who were accepted.

Yes - you are right - to be clear - grades, scores and XCs that likely would have gotten into at least some of the schools with the FGLI boost. Definitely not all (they wanted a top Ivy and realistically probably not good enough for that). But more than they otherwise got into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

This is not true. I went to an Ivy. Im not FGLI but have plenty of friends that were. At a top Ivy, all these FGLI kids have talents and skills, whether it’s music or sports or in the lab and a lot of friendships are formed along these lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

The poors should know their place? And stay in it? Or at least not climb up faster than you? Because if their children do better than yours then they'll still be "fish out of water" and "not belong" right?

Wow. Defensive, aren't we. I'm saying some kids are meant to make the leap. Some aren't. Lots of kids make the leap and do great. But many are either taking up space or actually do really poorly because it is too much for them. Know your kid. And the schools should know their applicants. Setting a kid up to fail to meet quotas is not doing them any favors. There are many who will succeed and that is incredible. But a lot of them don't. And lots of rich kids fail miserably also.

It's true that some poor kids make the leap and do great, and some do not. But quite frankly one can say the same thing about privileged kids. If you know you do not really have to make your own way in the world, there is less fire under your feet to excel. Once all that scaffolding falls away and they are on their own, some of these kids really falter and have little drive. Know your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

The poors should know their place? And stay in it? Or at least not climb up faster than you? Because if their children do better than yours then they'll still be "fish out of water" and "not belong" right?

Wow. Defensive, aren't we. I'm saying some kids are meant to make the leap. Some aren't. Lots of kids make the leap and do great. But many are either taking up space or actually do really poorly because it is too much for them. Know your kid. And the schools should know their applicants. Setting a kid up to fail to meet quotas is not doing them any favors. There are many who will succeed and that is incredible. But a lot of them don't. And lots of rich kids fail miserably also.

It's true that some poor kids make the leap and do great, and some do not. But quite frankly one can say the same thing about privileged kids. If you know you do not really have to make your own way in the world, there is less fire under your feet to excel. Once all that scaffolding falls away and they are on their own, some of these kids really falter and have little drive. Know your kid.

Just to add, a lot of middle class kids falter too. And on second thought, it can be pretty hard to "know your kid" and predict how they will really do on their own. I have seen a lot of different types of kids struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

The poors should know their place? And stay in it? Or at least not climb up faster than you? Because if their children do better than yours then they'll still be "fish out of water" and "not belong" right?

Wow. Defensive, aren't we. I'm saying some kids are meant to make the leap. Some aren't. Lots of kids make the leap and do great. But many are either taking up space or actually do really poorly because it is too much for them. Know your kid. And the schools should know their applicants. Setting a kid up to fail to meet quotas is not doing them any favors. There are many who will succeed and that is incredible. But a lot of them don't. And lots of rich kids fail miserably also.

It's true that some poor kids make the leap and do great, and some do not. But quite frankly one can say the same thing about privileged kids. If you know you do not really have to make your own way in the world, there is less fire under your feet to excel. Once all that scaffolding falls away and they are on their own, some of these kids really falter and have little drive. Know your kid.

This post is about FGLI kids who went to selective private high schools. Generally these kids are positioned to do well at ivies and the like bc they already have that selective private high school experience—in some ways they’re better positioned than a middle class kid who stayed at a mediocre high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YES.

Read up on the SFFA supreme court decision from 2023.

SFFA = universities cannot examine an individual student’s skin color, and then lower the admissions standard based on their examination of the student’s skin.

That would be racist, obviously. But it was what universities did for decades; first as “racial quotas,” which were then disguised as “affirmative-action,” and finally disguised again as Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access (DEIA). Only certain groups were given these advantages, while Indians and Asians were excluded, because they benefit from unearned Indian and Asian privilege.

However, SFFA still allows universities to use “proxies” for race: low income / FARMS status is one of those proxies.

Please define “unearned Indian and Asian privilege.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

The poors should know their place? And stay in it? Or at least not climb up faster than you? Because if their children do better than yours then they'll still be "fish out of water" and "not belong" right?

Wow. Defensive, aren't we. I'm saying some kids are meant to make the leap. Some aren't. Lots of kids make the leap and do great. But many are either taking up space or actually do really poorly because it is too much for them. Know your kid. And the schools should know their applicants. Setting a kid up to fail to meet quotas is not doing them any favors. There are many who will succeed and that is incredible. But a lot of them don't. And lots of rich kids fail miserably also.

It's true that some poor kids make the leap and do great, and some do not. But quite frankly one can say the same thing about privileged kids. If you know you do not really have to make your own way in the world, there is less fire under your feet to excel. Once all that scaffolding falls away and they are on their own, some of these kids really falter and have little drive. Know your kid.

Just to add, a lot of middle class kids falter too. And on second thought, it can be pretty hard to "know your kid" and predict how they will really do on their own. I have seen a lot of different types of kids struggle.

The kids I know who faltered were across the income spectrum. There really are so many factors that go into this and some don’t show up until college age (eg, some mental health issues) so it’s hard to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:QB kid at our private was rejected from Princeton, who accepted a few donor + legacies kids this year early.

Try again, Princeton has the least full pay of any Ivy, by a large margin. They absolutely love low income/first gen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Low income alone isn't a hook – your child's attendance is costly to the school, and that means AOs need more justification to admit them despite the financial burden. If you mean FGLI or URM at a top private, then yes, that has always been a huge advantage in admissions, not just this year.

Your info is incorrect. Pell eligible has been a hook for quite a few years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. . .

TL/DR the obsession with social engineering and the guidelines for it have gone completely overboard and aren't doing what they are meant to do.

Exactly, and I agree with you. We need to abandon DEI and DEIA entirely, even if these concepts might sound nice on paper. Like many well-intentioned philosophies, DEI ultimately is divisive and ends up harming everyone; especially the folks we intend to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious how these kids do once they actually get to school. Based on what kids have told me, a lot of them are total fish out of water, cluster amongst themselves, don't really take advantage of the resources the school has, and suffer from impostor syndrome. There are definitely plenty who thrive, but a lot more who don't.

And they sit home on Saturday night because they can't afford to to to dinner, bars, frats with the other kids. So they miss out on the socializing/networking experience which is a huge but under-rated reason why you even go to these schools in the first place.

A lot of these kids are frankly skipping a step. Go to a really good state school where there will be more kids like you and make your way into middle class, which is a huge jump from where you were. Then your kids can make the next leap. That is how it used to be - I grew up in the NY area and my ancestors all grew up dirt poor, sent their kids to CUNY for free (back when it was really good), they became middle class, moved to the burbs and the best of their kids went to Ivies.

The poors should know their place? And stay in it? Or at least not climb up faster than you? Because if their children do better than yours then they'll still be "fish out of water" and "not belong" right?

. . . Setting a kid up to fail to meet quotas is not doing them any favors. There are many who will succeed and that is incredible. But a lot of them don't. And lots of rich kids fail miserably also.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. . .

TL/DR the obsession with social engineering and the guidelines for it have gone completely overboard and aren't doing what they are meant to do.

Exactly, and I agree with you. We need to abandon DEI and DEIA entirely, even if these concepts might sound nice on paper. Like many well-intentioned philosophies, DEI ultimately is divisive and ends up harming everyone; especially the folks we intend to help.

All things being equal the I would take a kid who is truly a minority and/or from a less privileged background (i.e. not the kid of Ivy alum minority Goldman/Wachtell partners who is at Dalton/Trinity/Horace Mann/Exeter). And within reason, schools should be making some effort to reach out to kids who might not normally have had the school on their radar - they don't need countless people canvassing the streets. But it should be a tie breaker and not obsessively tracked by the schools and other entities.

That being said, the obsessive hatred of DEI by Trump and his people is also not healthy. It is not destroying the world. It is not a justification for not funding otherwise upstanding universities and programs. Unfortunately, his followers are too simplistic and too insistent on blaming others for their problems to make that connection.