“the microsegment of the top 4 to 5 percent (earning $222,400 to $251,100) fares the absolute worst at t20 admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

Please enlighten us, what HHI range constitutes the "middle class"?

Middle class are under $100K who have no savings, live pay check to pay check and are lucky if they have health insurance. They aren't worried about saving for retirement and college as they'll probably never retire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting take indeed. My own DC pushed herself a bit harder than ideal to make the top grades in the tough classes and in her ECs. Ended up w top stats. Did not land in her Ed and we are in RD mode. If she was a little less competitive, I would have pushed her to do less in HS. Hope she isn't burnt out by all of this, especially if RD does not work out.

Is there not value in having studied hard in school, learned the academic material, and developed a strong work ethic, regardless of admissions outcomes?

In the long run, no — society clearly has communicated that doing that is for suckers.

I did that growing up and I want no part of that for my kids

My dream for them is to play a d1 sport at mountain west public or catholic private

I’d like for them to happy, athletic, social, confident and academics comes 5th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

Please enlighten us, what HHI range constitutes the "middle class"?

Harvard admits about 25% of their students from families making less than $85,000. Those are lower income families and families on government assistance.

If you leave out using upper and lower and middle you have everyone between families who are on government assistance and families who are financially stable but not able to pay for college on their own. It’s the majority of people who work and how well a family does on a certain income depends on how many children, cost of living, any special needs or costs.

The median household income in the US is under $85K, so this means that students in families making that are less than half as likely to end up attending Harvard as students whose income is above $85K. I have trouble believing that people from the 2% of families who make 4 or 5% are significantly less than 1% of the population at Harvard.

I do believe that students from families whose incomes are $85K or below are more likely to be weeded out before applications are submitted, in a whole variety of ways, and that a slightly higher percentage of those who apply are accepted because of that, but that's not the same thing as saying those kids have an advantage. The numbers clearly show that they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

This isn’t middle class.

It is when you’re comparing to wealthy applicants. As pp above explained, you need to be rich or poor to get in (unless hooked by URM, first gen, or ROTC) Rich does not mean earning a salary of $490,000 a year, it means wealthy, millions plus connections and legacy type of wealth or at least wealthy enough to pay for a school like Exeter and all the private sports coaching and enrichment summers in between. I realize $500 a year sounds like a lot if you make $85, but it is not rich when we’re talking college admissions. Not at all. It puts you smack dab in the “you have privilege but not enough to help you get in, so we don’t care” category.

At $300-500K a year you easily could have saved enough for any school you want your child to go to. At $200K you can comfortably save at least for a state school. At $300K+ a year you can comfortably pay cash for one child to go to an expensive school. Life is about choices. If you choose to spend it all and not save, don't scream poverty. And, we managed to save for state school, pay off a house (nothing most people would want), pay for fancy sports and music and much more and still save for retirement. We aren't living large, taking lots of vacations or many other things typical but that's ok.

[Anonymous]

It's because NOVA is so annoying and colleges want nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting take indeed. My own DC pushed herself a bit harder than ideal to make the top grades in the tough classes and in her ECs. Ended up w top stats. Did not land in her Ed and we are in RD mode. If she was a little less competitive, I would have pushed her to do less in HS. Hope she isn't burnt out by all of this, especially if RD does not work out.

Is there not value in having studied hard in school, learned the academic material, and developed a strong work ethic, regardless of admissions outcomes?

DP Of course. But kids are truly burning themselves out doing way more than most adults I know and we have to wonder if it’s worth it. I personally don’t think it is. Especially if you’re UMC and white. Between finances and college admission dept preferences, you’re likely going to end up at a state flagship anyway so enjoy your life a little.

But doing well in college usually matters, so studying harder in HS makes one better prepared to do so. Plus state flagships are a much bigger pond and it will be way tougher to distinguish oneself against a larger number of students who are equally if not more motivated.

It’s not all or nothing. Your kid can do well and work hard in HS without overworking and having a mental breakdown. There is NOTHING my unhooked UMC white kids can do that will get them into top 10 schools. They will be penalized for our zip code.

[Anonymous]

No one is entitled to home ownership, maxed-out retirement savings, and loan-free college tuition all at once. These are luxuries. Prioritize and choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

This isn’t middle class.

It is when you’re comparing to wealthy applicants. As pp above explained, you need to be rich or poor to get in (unless hooked by URM, first gen, or ROTC) Rich does not mean earning a salary of $490,000 a year, it means wealthy, millions plus connections and legacy type of wealth or at least wealthy enough to pay for a school like Exeter and all the private sports coaching and enrichment summers in between. I realize $500 a year sounds like a lot if you make $85, but it is not rich when we’re talking college admissions. Not at all. It puts you smack dab in the “you have privilege but not enough to help you get in, so we don’t care” category.

At $300-500K a year you easily could have saved enough for any school you want your child to go to. At $200K you can comfortably save at least for a state school. At $300K+ a year you can comfortably pay cash for one child to go to an expensive school. Life is about choices. If you choose to spend it all and not save, don't scream poverty. And, we managed to save for state school, pay off a house (nothing most people would want), pay for fancy sports and music and much more and still save for retirement. We aren't living large, taking lots of vacations or many other things typical but that's ok.

Why do you people always assume this salary has been consistent for years? Our salary was $65- 165 for most of their childhood but jumped to $400 when they were juniors and seniors in high school. For college applications, we were judged by our current zip code and current salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting take indeed. My own DC pushed herself a bit harder than ideal to make the top grades in the tough classes and in her ECs. Ended up w top stats. Did not land in her Ed and we are in RD mode. If she was a little less competitive, I would have pushed her to do less in HS. Hope she isn't burnt out by all of this, especially if RD does not work out.

Is there not value in having studied hard in school, learned the academic material, and developed a strong work ethic, regardless of admissions outcomes?

DP Of course. But kids are truly burning themselves out doing way more than most adults I know and we have to wonder if it’s worth it. I personally don’t think it is. Especially if you’re UMC and white. Between finances and college admission dept preferences, you’re likely going to end up at a state flagship anyway so enjoy your life a little.

But doing well in college usually matters, so studying harder in HS makes one better prepared to do so. Plus state flagships are a much bigger pond and it will be way tougher to distinguish oneself against a larger number of students who are equally if not more motivated.

It’s not all or nothing. Your kid can do well and work hard in HS without overworking and having a mental breakdown. There is NOTHING my unhooked UMC white kids can do that will get them into top 10 schools. They will be penalized for our zip code.

So you're telling me that every single MCPS, FCPS, and APS student getting into top 10 colleges is hooked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are kids with low income actually more likely to get into Yale, or are they more likely to be eliminated from the applicant pool before they even put together an application? Are kids in that 4 to 5% group really underrepresented relative to their percent in the population, or just relative to their percent in the applicant pool?

I have trouble reading this article about a kid who got into a prestigious K-12 prep school, and then a prestigious college that she chose to apply to and loved, as an evidence that she was disadvantaged.

This. They are looking at a socioeconomic bell curve among applicants, noting that schools have strong reasons to admit both the very wealthy and the poorest applicants at much higher rates, and of course the people in the middle of that bell curve (of which there are exponentially more) have the lowest admissions rate. This is not a surprising or even very interesting observation, and yet it's one that seems to perennially surprise UMC families who perceive themselves as being unique. We are not unique, we are a dime a dozen. Have your kid apply to a few of these schools if they have the grades/scores/desire, but aim for the state flagship (may not be your in-state flagship if you're in a very competitive state like VA, but another state flagship will do) or a less competitive SLAC because that's probably where your smart, hardworking, but otherwise incredibly basic kid is going. And guess what -- they'll probably do great there and might even be a lot better off than if they luck into a spot at Williams or Princeton where they will for sure discover, quickly, how prosaic their background is and how ill-prepared they are to compete with people who have trust funds and connections or who are genius-level talents or who are so aggressively ambitious that they will steamroll anyone who stands in their path. Which is who winds up at Ivies, for the most part.

Right, so when data naturally forms a bell curve you expect there to be selection against that tendency? Way to twist yourself into a pretzel.

Not what I said and no pretzels there.

The issue is that the income distribution of the entire US population is different than the income distribution among applicants to T20 schools. In the US as a whole, 50% of households make less than 75k. However, these families do not make up 50% of T20 applicants. They make up a much smaller proportion of applicants, and thus have a higher overall admission rate.

The lower middle class, with incomes of 75-150k, represent about 29% of the population. They may apply to T20s at a higher rate than students from families below 75k, but many students from this group will opt out because they do not come from communities where T20 attendance is considered as important, and families way worry about things like cost of travel (at 100k, a family is going to stress about the cost of flights to and from a school like Williams). So even this group may be underrepresented in T20 applications compared to the overall population.

Meanwhile, the percent of US households with an income of more than 250k is less than 4%. Even if every kid from one of these families applies to every T20, we're talking about maybe 20% of applicants. And since these applicants are going to contain a disproportionate number of legacies, donors, and incredibly well-resourced kids given every possible advantage to fulfill their potential prior to college, their admission rate is likely to be higher.

But let's look at the group the article is about. With family incomes well over 200k, these families are MUCH more likely to be ambitious in the way that attracts T20 applicants. The parents are more likely to have gone to T20s themselves, or to have aspired to go to them. They are more likely to live in cities where salaries are higher and where they are more likely to be exposed to other T20 grads, and workin industries where T20 credentials are highly valued. So a much higher percentage of students from this income level are likely to apply to T20 schools. Their parents can feel more confident that they will be able to afford to attend (despite the frequent "donut hole" protestations on this website -- if you have 1 or 2 kids and a 250k income, you can probably figure out a way to pay for a T20, even at full pay), and they are also more likely to view a T20 as worth this investment.

So these schools wind up admitting a lot applicants from both the bottom and tippy top of the income distribution curve, because there are so many fewer of them overall and they are more likely to have admissions advantages, whether that's being the valedictorian of their Title 1 inner city high school where not a single other person applied, or being the daughter of a billionaire. But students with parents making 200k to 250k are disproportionally represented in T20 applications, making them appear much more commonplace and harder to sell to admissions committees. Some will be admitted, but as a percentage of their total applications, relatively fewer.

It's not a pretzel. It's just what happens.

How does the school know the applicant is the “daughter of a billionaire”? I thought super rich families didn’t fill out the FAFSA (is that how they know…no FAFSA filled out?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

This isn’t middle class.

It is when you’re comparing to wealthy applicants. As pp above explained, you need to be rich or poor to get in (unless hooked by URM, first gen, or ROTC) Rich does not mean earning a salary of $490,000 a year, it means wealthy, millions plus connections and legacy type of wealth or at least wealthy enough to pay for a school like Exeter and all the private sports coaching and enrichment summers in between. I realize $500 a year sounds like a lot if you make $85, but it is not rich when we’re talking college admissions. Not at all. It puts you smack dab in the “you have privilege but not enough to help you get in, so we don’t care” category.

At $300-500K a year you easily could have saved enough for any school you want your child to go to. At $200K you can comfortably save at least for a state school. At $300K+ a year you can comfortably pay cash for one child to go to an expensive school. Life is about choices. If you choose to spend it all and not save, don't scream poverty. And, we managed to save for state school, pay off a house (nothing most people would want), pay for fancy sports and music and much more and still save for retirement. We aren't living large, taking lots of vacations or many other things typical but that's ok.

Why do you people always assume this salary has been consistent for years? Our salary was $65- 165 for most of their childhood but jumped to $400 when they were juniors and seniors in high school. For college applications, we were judged by our current zip code and current salary.

At $165K you can still save for college, we did. And, if you had that big of a jump you can take that extra $200K and use it to pay cash for college.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the bubble. Don’t you know DCUm families are special…..

Anonymous wrote:only DCUM thinks this is unique to DCUM. You think Cleveland, Columbus, Chicago, Queens, St Paul, half of NJ, Colorado Springs etc aren't full of families making 225k with smart kids who have done all the same things???

[Anonymous]

Who is bothering with the T'20 or T'30 these days anyway? The odds are so astronomically low even if you're playing olympic level sports or off the charts EC and unweighted straight A average in hardest courses available. And then you don't even enjoy your high school years and are devastated when the college you do go into doesn't bring you instant happiness.

My DC is getting an A- average unweighted at a strong private school and only doing sports and ECs in a relaxed way, and also has time to devote to many hobbies discovered organically. We have no delusions of grandeur that DC will get into any T'30 schools or even our own alma maters (Penn and BU) because they have become too difficult to get into.

We're encouraging DC to apply to schools that have acceptance rates of 40-50%-ish with a few they really like as reaches which have 20-30% acceptance rates.

They will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

Please enlighten us, what HHI range constitutes the "middle class"?

Harvard admits about 25% of their students from families making less than $85,000. Those are lower income families and families on government assistance.

If you leave out using upper and lower and middle you have everyone between families who are on government assistance and families who are financially stable but not able to pay for college on their own. It’s the majority of people who work and how well a family does on a certain income depends on how many children, cost of living, any special needs or costs.

The median household income in the US is under $85K, so this means that students in families making that are less than half as likely to end up attending Harvard as students whose income is above $85K. I have trouble believing that people from the 2% of families who make 4 or 5% are significantly less than 1% of the population at Harvard.

I do believe that students from families whose incomes are $85K or below are more likely to be weeded out before applications are submitted, in a whole variety of ways, and that a slightly higher percentage of those who apply are accepted because of that, but that's not the same thing as saying those kids have an advantage. The numbers clearly show that they don't.

TY! This should be required reading for all folks who come to the college forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Middle class always gets screwed

This isn’t middle class.

It is when you’re comparing to wealthy applicants. As pp above explained, you need to be rich or poor to get in (unless hooked by URM, first gen, or ROTC) Rich does not mean earning a salary of $490,000 a year, it means wealthy, millions plus connections and legacy type of wealth or at least wealthy enough to pay for a school like Exeter and all the private sports coaching and enrichment summers in between. I realize $500 a year sounds like a lot if you make $85, but it is not rich when we’re talking college admissions. Not at all. It puts you smack dab in the “you have privilege but not enough to help you get in, so we don’t care” category.

At $300-500K a year you easily could have saved enough for any school you want your child to go to. At $200K you can comfortably save at least for a state school. At $300K+ a year you can comfortably pay cash for one child to go to an expensive school. Life is about choices. If you choose to spend it all and not save, don't scream poverty. And, we managed to save for state school, pay off a house (nothing most people would want), pay for fancy sports and music and much more and still save for retirement. We aren't living large, taking lots of vacations or many other things typical but that's ok.

Why do you people always assume this salary has been consistent for years? Our salary was $65- 165 for most of their childhood but jumped to $400 when they were juniors and seniors in high school. For college applications, we were judged by our current zip code and current salary.

At $165K you can still save for college, we did. And, if you had that big of a jump you can take that extra $200K and use it to pay cash for college.

Well, aren’t you all knowing?

You missed all the years we were under $100.

That big salary bump came with an 3x increase in COL.