Reply to Full pay matters

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Full pay matters"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Sounds like many of you didn’t read the full article…

“ …Even when applicants had the same SAT or ACT scores, those from the richest families were more than twice as likely to be admitted, according to the study, which analyzed data on test scores and parental income taxes for nearly all U.S.”[/quote]

Sigh. Because wealth doesn't only impact academics. It impacts access and achievements in extra-curriculars. Isn't that OBVIOUS to you??? [b]Extra-curriculars are the single most inequitable category of college admissions, FAR surpassing test scores and grades.[/b] Any intelligent child can get good grades and test scores, and there are free or low-cost tutors and test prep available everywhere in the US. But no amount of talent can propel a poor kid to the highest levels of any EC that requires money over a sustained period of time.

My kid will have been playing violin for 14 years by the time she applies to college. Twice a week year round, $100/hr, which is cheap given how reputable her teacher is. The violin cost a lot of money. She has won competitions and achieved a high level. Her STEM-minded friend went to Paris last winter for a genetics competition, and does that sort of thing regularly. And that's nothing compared to travel sports (10K+ a year), horse eventing, polo, sailing, flying, car racing, etc.

You seem to have NO IDEA of how much parents can spend on extra-curriculars, and how it influences college admissions.
[/quote]

This!!!

The SAT test scores are the biggest equalizer for smart poor kids.[/quote]

Only if the definition of a "good" score can be adjusted based on circumstances/a school's average score. A smart poor kid using free test prep resources, only taking it once, and coming from a less well resourced school is still going to have lower scores than a UMC private school kid with hours of tutoring.[/quote]

A majority of private school kids (even with hours of tutoring) actually don't have 1500+.  The big3, big5, big10 etc type of kids have higher scores because they are smarter.
Magnet and selected public schools have much higher sat average than a regular private school.[/quote]

People are conflating wealth with private vs public.

25%+ of Sidwell receives decent FA, while almost nobody who attends Whitman or Langley is “poor”.

I would also wager that most of TJ comes from a wealthier demographic as well.

This article is specifically about wealth.[/quote]

An oversimplified view equating wealth to high test score is obviously incorrect.

Was reading today's NYT.
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-merit-affirmative-action-colleges.html[/url]
where it states:  "7 percent of white test takers and 27 percent of Asian students scored between 1400 and 1600."
Asian are not four times wealthier than white.  
It's more complicated than people would like to think.  But there are certainly one or more factors independent of wealth. 
And based on the numbers (four times), wealth does not appear to be the dominant factor.[/quote]

You don't have to be 4x wealthier than someone for the statistics to mean something.

Once you hit a certain level of wealth, then you can afford to spend on all the various things the article talks about.

Median Asian income in the US is $122k which is 30% higher than overall median HHI, and the share of Asians living in UMC households is 27% vs. 17% for the US as a whole.  https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/

Knowing that many Asian families do in fact invest a ton in extra math, music and other activities, then the article makes sense.

However, perhaps the article should say that households that spend all these extra things have an admissions advantage because many Asian households put a higher priority on these things and even households that aren't wealthy will spend on these activities.[/quote]
For reference, median Black household income is $54,000. That's how dramatic of a difference we are talking about when people discuss race in admissions.[/quote]

The Asians in NYC are poorer than the blacks yet Stuyvesant is predominantly Asian.  Now what?[/quote]

Niche claims the median Stuy household income is $234k.  Doesn’t seem poor at all.[/quote]

It is not possible that Stuy has such a high median income. Niche data is probably wrong or they are reporting data based on who submitted information to the site. Stuyvesant draws more than half of its student body from outer boroughs and many are low income. [/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