Reply to America's Top Colleges Have a Rich-Kid Problem

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "America's Top Colleges Have a Rich-Kid Problem"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]AN A- average in a school in a low-SES area often doesn't mean the same as an A- somewhere in Westchester.  The best predictor of college success is rigor of high school courseload.

Also, the most selective colleges look for serious extracurriculars, with leadership and initiative. Poor kids are disadvantaged in some subtle ways here.  Colleges usually don't hold it against kids who have to work.  However, if kids are stuck in cul-de-sacs because they don't have a car of their own, and their parent have to work, they can't go to all of the rehearsals, practices and meetings that a serious extracurricular commitment requires.

They also aren't necessarily raised to take initiative; they are raised to toe the line.  Thus, they don't start clubs at school, or do independent research projects.   I've been an Ivy interviewer for a while.  The upper middle class kids chatter confidently with me about their lives.  Some of the middle middle class kids have trouble looking me in the eye.[/quote]

Please. This is insulting. Reminds me of when I arrived at my top 30 college on a scholarship and my roommate (daughter of a Republican Senator) mentioned that "Private colleges are for people who can afford them, for everyone else there are state schools."

Your comments are disturbing. [/quote]

Yeah, pretty clueless.  A  few things you missed, Ivy interviewer  . . .

1) In fairness, to judge rigor in an applicant's transcript, the adcom must look at the context -- i.e., the curriculum offered by the applicant's high school, not the curriculum offered by another high school which the applicant did  not attend and never had the possibility of attending.

2) You're absolutely correct that poor kids are disadvantaged with respect to compiling a resume of extra-curricular activities, though it's not a particularly subtle disadvantage as you would characterize it.  Not only do poor kids have to work, and not only do their parents not have time to shuttle them to activities, but, beyond that, their parents can't even pay for these many activities, nor do they know from the moment the child is born that their kids should be involved in these activities.  They're not packaging the kids, as so many of those "risk-taking" upper-middle-class kids have been packaged, or at least advised, by their parents.

3) Notwithstanding the above, if  you look at the research by Avery and Hoxby, what's apparent is not that poor kids aren't well-qualified for admission to highly selective colleges and universities, but that they don't even apply.  This is a significant and disturbing problem that universities, including my Ivy alma mater, are just beginning to grapple with.    [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics