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.

This is what I've seen in my experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Re how people of different backgrounds raise their kids, are poor kids who are raised to be ultra aggressive, proud and entitled most likely to make it to the top colleges because they have characteristics similar to kids from wealthy families?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ill assume for a minute that this poster is real (and i sufferable) and not a troll. This is part of the problem. Alums doing the interviewing are probably biased to recommend people that look like them.



I think the interesting research would be how the income balance has changed over time. The top schools certainly try to attract a broader SES group now. Maybe it used to look worse.

I wrote this post. I don't mean to suggest that this is acceptable. I'm telling you that this is why you get this income skew. I spent a ton of time advocating for kids from poorer backgrounds or even middle middle class backgrounds. It didn't work.

If my generalizations about how people of different backgrounds raise their kids offends you, there is a ton of anthrpological research to back it up. Why do you think rich kids get away with so much? They are raised to be "risk-takers", so they do things that middle class kids could never get away with (see all of the Kennedys), and schools turn a blind eye.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ill assume for a minute that this poster is real (and i sufferable) and not a troll. This is part of the problem. Alums doing the interviewing are probably biased to recommend people that look like them.

I think the interesting research would be how the income balance has changed over time. The top schools certainly try to attract a broader SES group now. Maybe it used to look worse.

Anonymous wrote:OP I agree this is deeply disturbing I it's implications for the future of our country.

AND....the suggested solution is ??????

OP I agree this is deeply disturbing I it's implications for the future of our country.

More money better life duh, nothing wrong with public but no one deserves free private

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Also, wealthy people live in nicer houses and have better health care!

Who funds the Century Foundation

*yawn*

The wealthiest schools in the country could have more economic diversity if they wanted it. So why don't they?

In case you ever wondered just how much wealthy students dominate America's top colleges, here's a nice illustration from a new report by the Century Foundation. At the most selective schools in the country,* 70 percent of students come from the wealthiest quarter of U.S. families. Just 14 percent come from the poorest half. And while these statistics date back to 2006, I think it's safe to say they haven't changed greatly in the last few years...

If you think higher education should be a ladder for upward mobility, then you should regard these numbers as a disgrace. As we've written before at The Atlantic, elite colleges do a consistently poor job recruiting the intelligent but low-income high school students who could benefit most from a top-notch education...

But it's certainly not as if there aren't enough smart, poor students to fill up classrooms. As economists Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery have shown, about 39 percent of America's high-achieving students are from the country's poorest 50 percent of students. These are teenagers who manage an A- average in school and finish among the 10 percent of SAT or ACT takers.



http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/americas-top-colleges-have-a-rich-kid-problem/276195/

Discuss...