I feel bad for low-income/first-gen students at elite schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50% compared to 69% is not a huge difference. And frankly, graduating from Princeton is a massive leg up in and of itself.

Ditto! Your pity is misplaced OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really means many of them were academically less qualified to get into Princeton in the first place. They took advantage of the rest of the applicants, got a free ride (FA and more), and now they're asking for more free rides?

Your comment indicates that you have no understanding of what it means to be from a family where no one has gone to college and there is no money for anything but necessities.

I do understand. But where does it end in terms of giving them free rides?

+1 👍

Princeton is not a government welfare office. It’s not meals-on-wheels. It’s not Salvation Army. Got it?

It’s a private institution. Barring discriminating against protected classes, it can admit & give FA to whomever it pleaaes.

The problem is that they are not discriminating against the unprepared, as they should be.

They “should do” whatever they please.

Nah, we already know that no "private institution" is allowed to do whatever it pleases. That's been off the table since 1965.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

Disagree. I work with low-income, first-gen students in one of the most dysfunctional school districts in the country. If, and this is a real life example of a student in our program, a young person who speaks four languages, spent several years in a refugee camp with minimal schooling, worked two jobs in high school goes to an elite college an earns a 3.0 they have more natural ability and tenacity than any prep school kid who rolls in and gets a 3.8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t go to Princeton, but I was a first gen student and Pell grant recipient at a private college in the mid 00s. It was hard. One huge difference in my experience vs my wealthier peers was internships. I had to work during college, often 2-3 jobs, so I couldn’t take unpaid internships because I needed money for tuition, room and board, food, etc. The lack of experience made it much more difficult to get a job, especially during a recession.

+1

Same. Mid 90's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really means many of them were academically less qualified to get into Princeton in the first place. They took advantage of the rest of the applicants, got a free ride (FA and more), and now they're asking for more free rides?

Your comment indicates that you have no understanding of what it means to be from a family where no one has gone to college and there is no money for anything but necessities.

I do understand. But where does it end in terms of giving them free rides?

+1 👍

Princeton is not a government welfare office. It’s not meals-on-wheels. It’s not Salvation Army. Got it?

It’s a private institution. Barring discriminating against protected classes, it can admit & give FA to whomever it pleaaes.

The problem is that they are not discriminating against the unprepared, as they should be.

They “should do” whatever they please.

Nah, we already know that no "private institution" is allowed to do whatever it pleases. That's been off the table since 1965.

You missed the “against protected classes” part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

Disagree. I work with low-income, first-gen students in one of the most dysfunctional school districts in the country. If, and this is a real life example of a student in our program, a young person who speaks four languages, spent several years in a refugee camp with minimal schooling, worked two jobs in high school goes to an elite college an earns a 3.0 they have more natural ability and tenacity than any prep school kid who rolls in and gets a 3.8.

x1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

Who has the luxury of useless degrees?
I was first gen and went into engineering and did fine, even though a different science might have been my first pick if money was no object. I knew I had to have a career track right out of undergrad.

What you may not know about being poor is that you don't pick up merchandise unless you already know the price of it. I knew the other degrees were not in my budget.

Lots of lesser prepared kids get weeded out of “useful” majors like engineering, biology, computer science, physics & statistics. Even nursing (although Princeton doesn’t offer that).

Simple reason: Because those URM kids who were admitted only because of AA/DEI can’t handle STEM. In liberal arts they can fudge. They may even be given a free pass if they can’t write grammatically correct sentences. (Not suggesting that ANY liberal arts professors should EVER do that!) But in STEM there is no way to fudge.

I love how you assume that first-gen means URM when most of the URM students at schools like Princeton are not first-gen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

Who has the luxury of useless degrees?
I was first gen and went into engineering and did fine, even though a different science might have been my first pick if money was no object. I knew I had to have a career track right out of undergrad.

What you may not know about being poor is that you don't pick up merchandise unless you already know the price of it. I knew the other degrees were not in my budget.

Lots of lesser prepared kids get weeded out of “useful” majors like engineering, biology, computer science, physics & statistics. Even nursing (although Princeton doesn’t offer that).

Simple reason: Because those URM kids who were admitted only because of AA/DEI can’t handle STEM. In liberal arts they can fudge. They may even be given a free pass if they can’t write grammatically correct sentences. (Not suggesting that ANY liberal arts professors should EVER do that!) But in STEM there is no way to fudge.

+1 a DEI type student in my DC's math class got into an ivy. DC says this kid struggles a lot in the math class, and that they are going to flame out in the math classes there.

So what? That kid will graduate with an Ivy degree, and yours won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really means many of them were academically less qualified to get into Princeton in the first place. They took advantage of the rest of the applicants, got a free ride (FA and more), and now they're asking for more free rides?

Your comment indicates that you have no understanding of what it means to be from a family where no one has gone to college and there is no money for anything but necessities.

I do understand. But where does it end in terms of giving them free rides?

+1 👍

Princeton is not a government welfare office. It’s not meals-on-wheels. It’s not Salvation Army. Got it?

It’s a private institution. Barring discriminating against protected classes, it can admit & give FA to whomever it pleaaes.

The problem is that they are not discriminating against the unprepared, as they should be.

How are you supposed to discriminate? All the low-income admits to Princeton I know were valedictorian or salutatorian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

Who has the luxury of useless degrees?
I was first gen and went into engineering and did fine, even though a different science might have been my first pick if money was no object. I knew I had to have a career track right out of undergrad.

What you may not know about being poor is that you don't pick up merchandise unless you already know the price of it. I knew the other degrees were not in my budget.

Lots of lesser prepared kids get weeded out of “useful” majors like engineering, biology, computer science, physics & statistics. Even nursing (although Princeton doesn’t offer that).

Simple reason: Because those URM kids who were admitted only because of AA/DEI can’t handle STEM. In liberal arts they can fudge. They may even be given a free pass if they can’t write grammatically correct sentences. (Not suggesting that ANY liberal arts professors should EVER do that!) But in STEM there is no way to fudge.

+1 a DEI type student in my DC's math class got into an ivy. DC says this kid struggles a lot in the math class, and that they are going to flame out in the math classes there.

So what? That kid will graduate with an Ivy degree, and yours won't.

If they flame out, no, they won't graduate with an Ivy degree. But, to OP's point, part of the reason why you see some kids struggling is because of the "holistic" admissions factor.

Also, recruiters do look at college GPA for recent grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a senior survey at Princeton which had a breakdown for GPA across income levels, first-gen status, etc: https://projects.dailyprincetonian.com/senior-survey-2022/academics.html

50% of first-gen students had a 3.6 GPA or higher, compared to 69% of non-first gen students.

The lowest income students by family household (below 40K) at Princeton had an average GPA of a 3.5, while the highest income students had a 3.72.

32% of the lowest income students reported cheating on an assignment or exam, compared to 21% of students overall.

Only 49% of students on financial aid reported having a job lined up for graduation, compared to 62% of those not on FA. Expected income for those on FA was 84K one year after graduating, compared to 124K for those not on FA. Students on all household income levels below 125K reported expected earnings under 84K, while all those over that level reported at least 115K.

These are considerable gaps. If higher ed is supposed to be the great equalizer, why are Princeton grads seeing such discrepancies corresponding with their background?

These "discrepancies" demonstrate what should be extremely obvious to everyone, which is that the "elite" schools are admitting low-income / first-gen students who are not academically qualified, and are doing so for ideological reasons.

Disagree. I work with low-income, first-gen students in one of the most dysfunctional school districts in the country. If, and this is a real life example of a student in our program, a young person who speaks four languages, spent several years in a refugee camp with minimal schooling, worked two jobs in high school goes to an elite college an earns a 3.0 they have more natural ability and tenacity than any prep school kid who rolls in and gets a 3.8.

x1000000

dp.. very true... however, recruiters at companies won't care about the fact that this person was a refugee, and will only look at their GPA, and internships. Companies don't care about sob stories.

[Anonymous]

This thread is oozing with jealousy & sour grapes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

Who has the luxury of useless degrees?
I was first gen and went into engineering and did fine, even though a different science might have been my first pick if money was no object. I knew I had to have a career track right out of undergrad.

What you may not know about being poor is that you don't pick up merchandise unless you already know the price of it. I knew the other degrees were not in my budget.

Lots of lesser prepared kids get weeded out of “useful” majors like engineering, biology, computer science, physics & statistics. Even nursing (although Princeton doesn’t offer that).

Simple reason: Because those URM kids who were admitted only because of AA/DEI can’t handle STEM. In liberal arts they can fudge. They may even be given a free pass if they can’t write grammatically correct sentences. (Not suggesting that ANY liberal arts professors should EVER do that!) But in STEM there is no way to fudge.

+1 a DEI type student in my DC's math class got into an ivy. DC says this kid struggles a lot in the math class, and that they are going to flame out in the math classes there.

So what? That kid will graduate with an Ivy degree, and yours won't.

If they flame out, no, they won't graduate with an Ivy degree. But, to OP's point, part of the reason why you see some kids struggling is because of the "holistic" admissions factor.

Also, recruiters do look at college GPA for recent grads.

96% of Pell grant recipients graduated from Princeton, compared to 97% of non-Pell grant recipients.

The low-income kids at Princeton graduate at a nearly identical rate. And a 3.5 vs 3.7 GPA is almost indistinguishable to most employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they go to those schools and major in useless stuff, then good luck.
Of course it's better than majoring in useless stuff at a mediocre school, however it has more to do with major.

Who has the luxury of useless degrees?
I was first gen and went into engineering and did fine, even though a different science might have been my first pick if money was no object. I knew I had to have a career track right out of undergrad.

What you may not know about being poor is that you don't pick up merchandise unless you already know the price of it. I knew the other degrees were not in my budget.

Lots of lesser prepared kids get weeded out of “useful” majors like engineering, biology, computer science, physics & statistics. Even nursing (although Princeton doesn’t offer that).

Simple reason: Because those URM kids who were admitted only because of AA/DEI can’t handle STEM. In liberal arts they can fudge. They may even be given a free pass if they can’t write grammatically correct sentences. (Not suggesting that ANY liberal arts professors should EVER do that!) But in STEM there is no way to fudge.

+1 a DEI type student in my DC's math class got into an ivy. DC says this kid struggles a lot in the math class, and that they are going to flame out in the math classes there.

So what? That kid will graduate with an Ivy degree, and yours won't.

If they flame out, no, they won't graduate with an Ivy degree. But, to OP's point, part of the reason why you see some kids struggling is because of the "holistic" admissions factor.

Also, recruiters do look at college GPA for recent grads.

But they are not going to flame out because it rarely happens at elite schools because the schools care about their graduation numbers. The student will just change to a non-math-heavy major and graduate with a 3.5. Happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is oozing with jealousy & sour grapes.

+1 it's laughable that people think these data findings will somehow convince schools to shift away from holistic admissions or convince schools like Princeton that these kids shouldn't be admitted because they are not academically prepared.