America's Top Colleges Have a Rich-Kid Problem

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

(1) YOUR KID GOT IN TO AN IVY!!! I'M SOOO IMPRESSED! (This was the point of your post, I assume.)

(2) If you seriously think top performing kids from low performing areas "can't write a research paper," you need to get your head out of your hind region. "Writing a research paper" is not the same as invention cold-fusion, even if your perfect little snowflake insists it is and that you should send more money immediately because your LO has it SOOOOO hard. Also, it's not West Point.

(3) I see the worst writing from Ivy-leage grads. Absolutely dreadful. It doesn't mean I don't also see excellent writing from other Ivy-league grads--I do. But if they're using some writing litmus test in the Ivies, then they need to change the formula.

What happened here? Someone had too many brewskis at the Memorial Day BarBQue?

Hope nobody punched their sister at the shindig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

True, this is what my Ivy friend said (won't mention school.)

This might have been true 10 or 20 years ago. But these days it's so hard to get into these highly selective schools (also SLACs, Stanford, MIT and many others too) that the kids who get in are self-driven and really motivated. Plus the vast majority are taking on lots of debt and aren't going to waste their four years. The stereotype of the rich party kid who thinks Princeton is a fancy summer camp is really just that, a stereotype, these days. I know kids at these schools today. The party hardy kids who slip through the admissions cracks can, and do, flunk out.

[Anonymous]

Agree completely with above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In response to those who have suggested that "poor" students (not sure how they're defining this term) aren't going to make it at highly- selective colleges, I'll trust that your concern is coming from the right place, but I don't think the answer is to keep the barriers to entry up. My son just completed his freshman year at a highly-ranked university with a demanding curriculum and stringent grading. He graduated from a local independent school and was very well-prepared, having written 5 or 6 research papers during high school. In contrast. he observed that some of his friends who had gone to inner-city schools or regional high schools in rural areas faced a real challenge in making the transition to college. A couple of these students had never written a research paper and had done very few essays beyond the formulaic AP requirements. What those kids did, though, was to get help when they needed it. The most selective schools have high graduation rates for a reason -- they offer support services, particularly with respect to writing, for students who enter with less preparation. Keep in mind, too, that those kids generally aren't frail flowers prone to wilting; rather, they survive and flourish. For one example, take a look at Justice Sotomayor's autobiography, My Beloved World, and her account of her experience at Princeton after coming out of an urban parochial school background. I'd say she didn't do too badly in the long run.

I did not say they were not going to "make it" at the Ivys. I said they Ivy's do not owe them admission/tuition.

[Anonymous]

I think the Ivies should make it a mission to take more high-achieving, low-income kids. For this to happen, they need to (a) do more outreach at rural schools, not just at a few top public schools in Potomac and Bethesda, and (b) offer more in the way of Posse support and tutoring. They also, obviously, (c) need to offer more merit aid, but I think we all understand that the endowment pot is limited relative to the large numbers of deserving low-income kid.

It's in the ivies' interests to bring in kids from all SES strata. I do think the private school "diversity" efforts in this area, where they take a handful of full-FA kids, are a bit of a joke, sort of tokenism. And yes, my kids did private school.

You can say negative things about Ivy kids. You can call them pleasers, or say they are hypocrites for joining the Environmental Club just to pad their resumes. But you can't say they aren't focussed or hard-working, because these days they wouldn't get in without that. To call them Party-Hardy and talk about gentlemen's C's (the phrase is not B+s) is dwell on old stereo-types and miss the big picture.

Finally, is an Ivy education really better than the state school? Debatable, and depends on the field. But as long as there's the perception a PP has, that you make "invaluable connections" there, it's worth trying to address the presence of low-income kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the Ivies should make it a mission to take more high-achieving, low-income kids. For this to happen, they need to (a) do more outreach at rural schools, not just at a few top public schools in Potomac and Bethesda, and (b) offer more in the way of Posse support and tutoring. They also, obviously, (c) need to offer more merit aid, but I think we all understand that the endowment pot is limited relative to the large numbers of deserving low-income kid.

It's in the ivies' interests to bring in kids from all SES strata. I do think the private school "diversity" efforts in this area, where they take a handful of full-FA kids, are a bit of a joke, sort of tokenism. And yes, my kids did private school.

You can say negative things about Ivy kids. You can call them pleasers, or say they are hypocrites for joining the Environmental Club just to pad their resumes. But you can't say they aren't focussed or hard-working, because these days they wouldn't get in without that. To call them Party-Hardy and talk about gentlemen's C's (the phrase is not B+s) is dwell on old stereo-types and miss the big picture.

Finally, is an Ivy education really better than the state school? Debatable, and depends on the field. But as long as there's the perception a PP has, that you make "invaluable connections" there, it's worth trying to address the presence of low-income kids.

What private schools take full "FA-kids"? None. The tuition percentage that some lower-income parents are paying may be low, but they are paying something in addition to books, etc. Not to mention that these "FA-kids" are academically qualified to attend the schools. Not many families are keen on subjecting their lower-income kids to elitist environments.

[Anonymous]

you have no idea what you're talking about pp. For parents making under $100k -- the kids can get full FA for Harvard, Princeton and Yale. I don't know about the others. Stanford is not an Ivy, but I think it has the same deal.

[Anonymous]

Maybe I should retire the year before DD applies to college. That should drop my income below $100K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.



Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.


True, this is what my Ivy friend said (won't mention school.)


This might have been true 10 or 20 years ago. But these days it's so hard to get into these highly selective schools (also SLACs, Stanford, MIT and many others too) that the kids who get in are self-driven and really motivated. Plus the vast majority are taking on lots of debt and aren't going to waste their four years. The stereotype of the rich party kid who thinks Princeton is a fancy summer camp is really just that, a stereotype, these days. I know kids at these schools today. The party hardy kids who slip through the admissions cracks can, and do, flunk out.

Keep telling yourself that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I should retire the year before DD applies to college. That should drop my income below $100K.

You'd have to retire a year or two before DD applies. The FA application is based on the previous tax year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This might have been true 10 or 20 years ago. But these days it's so hard to get into these highly selective schools (also SLACs, Stanford, MIT and many others too) that the kids who get in are self-driven and really motivated. Plus the vast majority are taking on lots of debt and aren't going to waste their four years. The stereotype of the rich party kid who thinks Princeton is a fancy summer camp is really just that, a stereotype, these days. I know kids at these schools today. The party hardy kids who slip through the admissions cracks can, and do, flunk out.

Keep telling yourself that!

My info comes from kids I know who are actually in highly selective schools (Ivies and SLACs) right now. Whereas you are clearly talking out your butt.

Please, go plague the Political Forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? What were the alma maters of our last 10 Presidents?

Obama - Columbia University
Bush II - Yale (legacy)
Clinton - Georgetown
Bush I - Yale
Reagan - Eureka College
Carter - United States Naval Academy
Ford - Michigan
Nixon - Whittier College
LBJ - Southwest Texas State Teachers College
(Texas State University - San Marcos)
JFK - Harvard

In our entire history, only 13 Presidents have graduated from an Ivy League School.

Not saying it's right, but it looks like the Ivies are more important in the recent past. Abe Lincoln was, after all, president about 140 years ago. Maybe our country's fascination with educational status us a fairly recent phenomenon.

Consider the SES status that those Presidents came from. Only the Bush and Kennedy families were extremely well to do. JFK's dad was largely self made.