Wealth, privilege and college admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Dh went to Yale. I went to Harvard. I do agree that the uber rich kids hung out together and married one another. Dh and I are children of poor immigrants and we ended up marrying one another.

DH is very successful and earns a seven figure income. He is well connected and I don’t think he would have had the same opportunities had he gone to Penn State. We live a very UMC lifestyle. Some people may think we are rich. All would not have been possible had we not done so well academically. This may be an Asian way of thinking. We are taught that education is our ticket.

It’s not just Asians. My mom’s choices were to be a teacher or a nurse and then a stay at home mom. My dad had no college. I went to MIT and Stanford Law. DH went to a great state school, crushed it at a top 10 MBA program (his parents were just like mine) and we both now make mid-seven figures. My daughters are what the target should be - hard workers who are really smart from stable, highly successful families. They have great grades, great sports, great service engagement, etc etc. The best schools should be fighting for them. If doing what we did (coming from nowhere with no hooks) hurts my kids, then feminism has been poorly served.

Fellow Stanford Grad here. I disagree our children should be the targets. These schools are leading institutions in America. They should be thinking about how to target high impact individuals who will lead society through its next stages of challenges: the next Barack Obama, the kid who’s going to solve climate change, the one who can take a country through devastating forest fires, create the next Grameen Bank, use their privileged networks to concentrate efforts towards greater goods than ensuring their place in a nice country club. Too many kids like yours and mine who come from stable families will go on to create stable families regardless of whether they go to Stanford or elsewhere. The world needs someone who can bring stability to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, not just theirs. This is what Stanford should aim for

This makes no sense at all. The kids of previous poster are as likely --if not more-- to become those global changemakers you seem to worship. This is not an opinion but a fact, having worked in foundations and seen the profiles of many famous and not-so-famous social entrepreneurs and pioneers.

Why more likely?

[Anonymous]

Upper middle class is the least privileged when it comes to colleges, they pay the post percentage of income still not welcome as colleges want mostly wealthy with some some charity cases thrown in to look good.

[Anonymous]

Your wealth and privilege is only good if you can donate millions.

[Anonymous]

I 100% agree with the whole wealth mobility from my fancy undergrad. Most stayed within their strata but marriage upended people over anything else by the widest margin. Men and women. Marry well my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I 100% agree with the whole wealth mobility from my fancy undergrad. Most stayed within their strata but marriage upended people over anything else by the widest margin. Men and women. Marry well my children.

Yes, marry for wealth. Duh!

[Anonymous]

“It’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man.” -Gentleman Prefer Blondes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Dh went to Yale. I went to Harvard. I do agree that the uber rich kids hung out together and married one another. Dh and I are children of poor immigrants and we ended up marrying one another.

DH is very successful and earns a seven figure income. He is well connected and I don’t think he would have had the same opportunities had he gone to Penn State. We live a very UMC lifestyle. Some people may think we are rich. All would not have been possible had we not done so well academically. This may be an Asian way of thinking. We are taught that education is our ticket.

It’s not just Asians. My mom’s choices were to be a teacher or a nurse and then a stay at home mom. My dad had no college. I went to MIT and Stanford Law. DH went to a great state school, crushed it at a top 10 MBA program (his parents were just like mine) and we both now make mid-seven figures. My daughters are what the target should be - hard workers who are really smart from stable, highly successful families. They have great grades, great sports, great service engagement, etc etc. The best schools should be fighting for them. If doing what we did (coming from nowhere with no hooks) hurts my kids, then feminism has been poorly served.

Fellow Stanford Grad here. I disagree our children should be the targets. These schools are leading institutions in America. They should be thinking about how to target high impact individuals who will lead society through its next stages of challenges: the next Barack Obama, the kid who’s going to solve climate change, the one who can take a country through devastating forest fires, create the next Grameen Bank, use their privileged networks to concentrate efforts towards greater goods than ensuring their place in a nice country club. Too many kids like yours and mine who come from stable families will go on to create stable families regardless of whether they go to Stanford or elsewhere. The world needs someone who can bring stability to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, not just theirs. This is what Stanford should aim for

This makes no sense at all. The kids of previous poster are as likely --if not more-- to become those global changemakers you seem to worship. This is not an opinion but a fact, having worked in foundations and seen the profiles of many famous and not-so-famous social entrepreneurs and pioneers.

No you look for those who will benefit society and the fact that many of the kids who come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds already make up the majority gives them means that they will be disproportionately represented. Not that you target them or give the wealth or privilege additional weight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Dh went to Yale. I went to Harvard. I do agree that the uber rich kids hung out together and married one another. Dh and I are children of poor immigrants and we ended up marrying one another.

DH is very successful and earns a seven figure income. He is well connected and I don’t think he would have had the same opportunities had he gone to Penn State. We live a very UMC lifestyle. Some people may think we are rich. All would not have been possible had we not done so well academically. This may be an Asian way of thinking. We are taught that education is our ticket.

It’s not just Asians. My mom’s choices were to be a teacher or a nurse and then a stay at home mom. My dad had no college. I went to MIT and Stanford Law. DH went to a great state school, crushed it at a top 10 MBA program (his parents were just like mine) and we both now make mid-seven figures. My daughters are what the target should be - hard workers who are really smart from stable, highly successful families. They have great grades, great sports, great service engagement, etc etc. The best schools should be fighting for them. If doing what we did (coming from nowhere with no hooks) hurts my kids, then feminism has been poorly served.

Fellow Stanford Grad here. I disagree our children should be the targets. These schools are leading institutions in America. They should be thinking about how to target high impact individuals who will lead society through its next stages of challenges: the next Barack Obama, the kid who’s going to solve climate change, the one who can take a country through devastating forest fires, create the next Grameen Bank, use their privileged networks to concentrate efforts towards greater goods than ensuring their place in a nice country club. Too many kids like yours and mine who come from stable families will go on to create stable families regardless of whether they go to Stanford or elsewhere. The world needs someone who can bring stability to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, not just theirs. This is what Stanford should aim for

This makes no sense at all. The kids of previous poster are as likely --if not more-- to become those global changemakers you seem to worship. This is not an opinion but a fact, having worked in foundations and seen the profiles of many famous and not-so-famous social entrepreneurs and pioneers.

No you look for those who will benefit society and the fact that many of the kids who come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds already make up the majority gives them means that they will be disproportionately represented. Not that you target them or give the wealth or privilege additional weight

Some of the problems of today are due to well intentioned do gooder wealthy liberals thinking they know what's best for the poor. When elite colleges continue to mostly accept the wealthy privileged thinking they will be the ones to solve all of society's ills, it just keeps the power in the hands of the wealthy few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Dh went to Yale. I went to Harvard. I do agree that the uber rich kids hung out together and married one another. Dh and I are children of poor immigrants and we ended up marrying one another.

DH is very successful and earns a seven figure income. He is well connected and I don’t think he would have had the same opportunities had he gone to Penn State. We live a very UMC lifestyle. Some people may think we are rich. All would not have been possible had we not done so well academically. This may be an Asian way of thinking. We are taught that education is our ticket.

It’s not just Asians. My mom’s choices were to be a teacher or a nurse and then a stay at home mom. My dad had no college. I went to MIT and Stanford Law. DH went to a great state school, crushed it at a top 10 MBA program (his parents were just like mine) and we both now make mid-seven figures. My daughters are what the target should be - hard workers who are really smart from stable, highly successful families. They have great grades, great sports, great service engagement, etc etc. The best schools should be fighting for them. If doing what we did (coming from nowhere with no hooks) hurts my kids, then feminism has been poorly served.

Fellow Stanford Grad here. I disagree our children should be the targets. These schools are leading institutions in America. They should be thinking about how to target high impact individuals who will lead society through its next stages of challenges: the next Barack Obama, the kid who’s going to solve climate change, the one who can take a country through devastating forest fires, create the next Grameen Bank, use their privileged networks to concentrate efforts towards greater goods than ensuring their place in a nice country club. Too many kids like yours and mine who come from stable families will go on to create stable families regardless of whether they go to Stanford or elsewhere. The world needs someone who can bring stability to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, not just theirs. This is what Stanford should aim for

This makes no sense at all. The kids of previous poster are as likely --if not more-- to become those global changemakers you seem to worship. This is not an opinion but a fact, having worked in foundations and seen the profiles of many famous and not-so-famous social entrepreneurs and pioneers.

No you look for those who will benefit society and the fact that many of the kids who come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds already make up the majority gives them means that they will be disproportionately represented. Not that you target them or give the wealth or privilege additional weight

Some of the problems of today are due to well intentioned do gooder wealthy liberals thinking they know what's best for the poor. When elite colleges continue to mostly accept the wealthy privileged thinking they will be the ones to solve all of society's ills, it just keeps the power in the hands of the wealthy few.

Keeping money in the hands of the few (specifically their graduates) is the whole theme underling elite college marketing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Dh went to Yale. I went to Harvard. I do agree that the uber rich kids hung out together and married one another. Dh and I are children of poor immigrants and we ended up marrying one another.

DH is very successful and earns a seven figure income. He is well connected and I don’t think he would have had the same opportunities had he gone to Penn State. We live a very UMC lifestyle. Some people may think we are rich. All would not have been possible had we not done so well academically. This may be an Asian way of thinking. We are taught that education is our ticket.

It’s not just Asians. My mom’s choices were to be a teacher or a nurse and then a stay at home mom. My dad had no college. I went to MIT and Stanford Law. DH went to a great state school, crushed it at a top 10 MBA program (his parents were just like mine) and we both now make mid-seven figures. My daughters are what the target should be - hard workers who are really smart from stable, highly successful families. They have great grades, great sports, great service engagement, etc etc. The best schools should be fighting for them. If doing what we did (coming from nowhere with no hooks) hurts my kids, then feminism has been poorly served.

Fellow Stanford Grad here. I disagree our children should be the targets. These schools are leading institutions in America. They should be thinking about how to target high impact individuals who will lead society through its next stages of challenges: the next Barack Obama, the kid who’s going to solve climate change, the one who can take a country through devastating forest fires, create the next Grameen Bank, use their privileged networks to concentrate efforts towards greater goods than ensuring their place in a nice country club. Too many kids like yours and mine who come from stable families will go on to create stable families regardless of whether they go to Stanford or elsewhere. The world needs someone who can bring stability to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families, not just theirs. This is what Stanford should aim for

This makes no sense at all. The kids of previous poster are as likely --if not more-- to become those global changemakers you seem to worship. This is not an opinion but a fact, having worked in foundations and seen the profiles of many famous and not-so-famous social entrepreneurs and pioneers.

No you look for those who will benefit society and the fact that many of the kids who come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds already make up the majority gives them means that they will be disproportionately represented. Not that you target them or give the wealth or privilege additional weight

Some of the problems of today are due to well intentioned do gooder wealthy liberals thinking they know what's best for the poor. When elite colleges continue to mostly accept the wealthy privileged thinking they will be the ones to solve all of society's ills, it just keeps the power in the hands of the wealthy few.

I would argue well intentioned do gooder wealthy liberals who create problems should be weeded out. They should be easy to spot via naive essays

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your wealth and privilege is only good if you can donate millions.

It’s still worth something to the college to get full tuition for 4 years rather than nothing. Plus the wealthier kids are more likely to become wealthy and successful alums, which has to be worth something.