dont be in the 60th to 99th percentile in income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was interesting about outcomes from Ivy:

"The researchers did a novel analysis to measure whether attending one of these colleges causes success later in life. They compared students who were wait-listed and got in, with those who didn’t and attended another college instead. Consistent with previous research, they found that attending an Ivy instead of one of the top nine public flagships did not meaningfully increase graduates’ income, on average. However, it did increase a student’s predicted chance of earning in the top 1 percent to 19 percent, from 12 percent."

So basically the primary income outcome advantage to an Ivy is you get a stronger shot at being in the top 1%.

the students from the 1% family don't need the extra boost of an ivy education to stay in the 1%, unless they are bums and/or drug addicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed résumés, and applied at a higher rate — but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things.”

this is about the 0.1%. But to me that is not the interesting story. the interesting story, which the author of the article mostly ignores (she has one sentence) is that the 60-99% percentile is the loser.

Really? That's what you've taken from this. It's admission rates. The majority of applicants are going to be in the 60-99th percentile income range. Of course they are going to be accepted at a lower rate...there are more of them. If you look up the composition of college campuses, though, I'm sure you'll find that they make up the majority of students.

+1

Exactly! the majority of kids in the 5-50% range do not have T25 schools on their radar. They grow up with a plan to attend CC then transfer to a state school (for affordability), and if really lucky attend all 4 years at a state school if they can afford it. They are not obsessed with attending Elite schools, so they don't apply.

Except the article says they accounted for this, and these students are still disadvantaged:

Before this study, it was clear that colleges enrolled more rich students, but it was not known whether it was just because more applied. The new study showed that’s part of it: One-third of the difference in attendance rates was because middle-class students were somewhat less likely to apply or matriculate. But the bigger factor was that these colleges were more likely to accept the richest applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed résumés, and applied at a higher rate — but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things.”

this is about the 0.1%. But to me that is not the interesting story. the interesting story, which the author of the article mostly ignores (she has one sentence) is that the 60-99% percentile is the loser.

Really? That's what you've taken from this. It's admission rates. The majority of applicants are going to be in the 60-99th percentile income range. Of course they are going to be accepted at a lower rate...there are more of them. If you look up the composition of college campuses, though, I'm sure you'll find that they make up the majority of students.

+1

Exactly! the majority of kids in the 5-50% range do not have T25 schools on their radar. They grow up with a plan to attend CC then transfer to a state school (for affordability), and if really lucky attend all 4 years at a state school if they can afford it. They are not obsessed with attending Elite schools, so they don't apply.

Except the article says they accounted for this, and these students are still disadvantaged:

Before this study, it was clear that colleges enrolled more rich students, but it was not known whether it was just because more applied. The new study showed that’s part of it: One-third of the difference in attendance rates was because middle-class students were somewhat less likely to apply or matriculate. But the bigger factor was that these colleges were more likely to accept the richest applicants.

One of you is talking about poor students, and one of you is talking about middle class students.

Poor students face many more barriers that prevent them from applying to top schools, or to have the scores needed to get to top schools. If they overcome those barriers, they are accepted at a slightly higher rate. That isn't some kind of preference, it's a recognition that overcoming poverty and gathering the credentials to apply is, in itself, an achievement to be recognized, so accepting them at a higher rate makes as much sense as accepting other students who have special achievements at a higher rate. Middle class and UMC students apply at higher rates, and so even though they are slightly less likely to be accepted than kids who have similar scores and the achievement of overcoming poverty, they are represented at a higher rate in the student body.

But rich kids are advantaged because they are rich, not because they did something particularly hard. Also their advantage on application isn't balanced by low acceptance rates, because they are both more likely to get the credentials to apply AND more likely to get in once they have the credentials, they make up a large percentage of the class.

The idea that you can compare the two groups or that there's any connection between the two in terms of privilege is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

[Anonymous]

btw non-recruited athletes get preferences too or higher admission, that was in the card analysis of data from the harvard trial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article isn’t very useful with respect to understanding the impact of preferential admissions for kids from the top 0.1%. I couldn’t see anywhere where it stated actual numbers. Sure the kids of the top 0.1% are twice as likely to be admitted but its impact can only be gauged if they share the actual numbers or proportion of admitted students who fall into this category.

If 100 kids were admitted from the top 0.1% and 50,000 from 60-99%, it had minimal impact. If 5,000 kids from the top 0.1% were admitted then it’s clearly problematic.

but who really cares about the very small number of ultra rich? It may be a good or bad thing, but there is a clear bias towards the lower half of the income bracket and again sthe upper half (half, not the 0.1%)

Let the various levels of poors fight amongst themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read this article. Super interesting. It said athletic preferences tend to pull in rich kids because many sports are only played by rich kids. Also legacy helps rich kids a lot. Kids got into their legacy schools but not into other ivies where they did not have legacy. Finally the top colleges give higher non academic ratings to private school kids mostly because counsellor and teacher recommendations tend to be better from private schools. They also said that the outcomes of wealthy students are no better and perhaps worse than other students.

Let's see:

* Athletic preferences: predominantly white
* Legacy: predominantly white
* Private school / Higher NA rating: predominantly white

This at the expense of Asians, yet URMs are the scapegoats.

Ed Blum and SFFA knew exactly what they were doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Although the graph is interesting people are treating it like it’s some nefarious plot. There are far more students in the 60-99% income range applying to college than below 60%. And for the top 1%, there’s not that many of them and they apply mainly to the legacy institution, so of course they have a higher rate.

Basic statistics people…

For someone who understands basic statistics, you don't seem to realize what "rate" means and how it takes care of differences in the headcount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This kind of information is only useful when it's shown together with the number of students in each segment. The number of kids below 60% and top 1% are very small relative to 60%-99%tile families. Most of families will be in 60-99 range. It's no surprise it shows up like this but I don't think it means when it appears to show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Nobody is implying rich kids are lazy and stupid.

From a university point of view, finding high income and studious is a challenge.

Financial aid is the carrot the university offers to make a low income student to do one thing: 1) stay committed for full four years and graduate. Whereas the university is asking a high income student do two things: 1) go ask your parents or get a loan but pay full tuition 2) please stay here for four years and put in the effort to graduate. Within the high income student pool, the legacy students bring in the additional attribute of emotional commitment which may or may not be present in a random high income student.

If these colleges weren't so stupidly expensive, then they wouldn't have to worry about #2. UMC could afford full pay without loans if they lowered the cost, but like expensive cars, the colleges like to keep it expensive to create a "in the club" experience.

why shouldn't a for profit university raise prices if it can still keep demand?

Apple's iPhone is celebrated as an all American business success every time it raises prices, and everyone - high income as well as low income happily pay $1400+ for owning it over time. Same with other branded luxuries, resort vacations, etc... As long as everyone pays the same, no one complains. Imagine what would happen if Apple changes its phone sales to something like half of their phone purchases to lower half will be funded by the upper half based on family income, color of their skin or some other social factor?

The colleges mentioned in the article are NONprofits with tremendous tax benefits although they act like for-profits.

they are nonprofit, but Private. all non-profit means profits made should be reinvested back into the college. There is no law that says non-profits should not maximize profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was interesting about outcomes from Ivy:

"The researchers did a novel analysis to measure whether attending one of these colleges causes success later in life. They compared students who were wait-listed and got in, with those who didn’t and attended another college instead. Consistent with previous research, they found that attending an Ivy instead of one of the top nine public flagships did not meaningfully increase graduates’ income, on average. However, it did increase a student’s predicted chance of earning in the top 1 percent to 19 percent, from 12 percent."

So basically the primary income outcome advantage to an Ivy is you get a stronger shot at being in the top 1%.

the students from the 1% family don't need the extra boost of an ivy education to stay in the 1%, unless they are bums and/or drug addicts.

It's not that the students from the 1% family are getting a boost to stay in the 1%, the chances are increased across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This kind of information is only useful when it's shown together with the number of students in each segment. The number of kids below 60% and top 1% are very small relative to 60%-99%tile families. Most of families will be in 60-99 range. It's no surprise it shows up like this but I don't think it means when it appears to show.

The data are controlling for all these factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try to understand the operational business model of a University college using student tuition as the revenue stream. Sure there are the endowment and research grants revenue streams, but focus on the Tuition line of business.

Tuition revenue from the high income family students is used to not only cover their tuition cost but also to cover the tuition cost of the other half of the student population from mid to low income families. So when a high income student pays, say $30k in full tuition, $15k goes to cover that student's instruction costs, and the other $15k goes to cover another qualified low income student in the form of financial aid. There is nothing to debate here: university needs full tuition paying students to exist as a business. In other words, low income merit students need the high income students to be enrolled and fully pay their tuition on time.

That said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious. Here is where the legacy students come into the picture. Legacy students bring the emotional commitment to stick around for full four years paying full tuition and graduate with a degree. By offering admissions to studious legacy students, the university is making sure the lower income students have a reliable funding source to cover their tuition costs.

Exactly. Very well explained.