Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.”

cool.But what are the "elite" colleges? Are we talking about the Ivies only, or those in the top 25 USNWR? or what?

The article mentions the 8 Ivies + MIT, Stanford, Duke and UChicago.

But all this is much ado about nothing. This myopic focus on so-called “elite” universities is senseless. The boundaries are arbitrary and the fact is there are literally hundreds of really good universities.

Yes, but a much smaller group of elite colleges & universities offer a significant boost in career/job opportunities for those with degrees (majors) in non-technical / non-STEM areas of study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise!! The Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Northwestern, UChicago, Notre Dame all favor the very wealthy despite all their talk to the contrary.

if you count the top half, not the top 0.1%, they are biased against it, not for it.

Which would make sense as these "elite" colleges cannot give preference to half the population. Significant preference is given to the very wealthy, not the merely well-off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.”

cool.But what are the "elite" colleges? Are we talking about the Ivies only, or those in the top 25 USNWR? or what?

The article mentions the 8 Ivies + MIT, Stanford, Duke and UChicago.

But all this is much ado about nothing. This myopic focus on so-called “elite” universities is senseless. The boundaries are arbitrary and the fact is there are literally hundreds of really good universities.

I agree. One of the study authors, a professor at Harvard, says in the article that we need to diversify the leadership elite by diversifying the elite institutions like Harvard. Here’s another path - the elite employers could start hiring from a broader range of institutions. Of course a Harvard professor wants to maintain the value of a Harvard degree. But that isn’t the only way to achieve the end goal.

So expanding to include “elite” HBCUS? Or “public ivies”?

it would be interesting to see data on how this bias helps/hurts employers.

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise!! The Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Northwestern, UChicago, Notre Dame all favor the very wealthy despite all their talk to the contrary.

if you count the top half, not the top 0.1%, they are biased against it, not for it.

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%)

Surprise, surprise!! The Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Northwestern, UChicago, Notre Dame all favor the very wealthy despite all their talk to the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.”

cool.But what are the "elite" colleges? Are we talking about the Ivies only, or those in the top 25 USNWR? or what?

The article mentions the 8 Ivies + MIT, Stanford, Duke and UChicago.

But all this is much ado about nothing. This myopic focus on so-called “elite” universities is senseless. The boundaries are arbitrary and the fact is there are literally hundreds of really good universities.

I agree. One of the study authors, a professor at Harvard, says in the article that we need to diversify the leadership elite by diversifying the elite institutions like Harvard. Here’s another path - the elite employers could start hiring from a broader range of institutions. Of course a Harvard professor wants to maintain the value of a Harvard degree. But that isn’t the only way to achieve the end goal.

So expanding to include “elite” HBCUS? Or “public ivies”?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.”

cool.But what are the "elite" colleges? Are we talking about the Ivies only, or those in the top 25 USNWR? or what?

The article mentions the 8 Ivies + MIT, Stanford, Duke and UChicago.

But all this is much ado about nothing. This myopic focus on so-called “elite” universities is senseless. The boundaries are arbitrary and the fact is there are literally hundreds of really good universities.

I agree. One of the study authors, a professor at Harvard, says in the article that we need to diversify the leadership elite by diversifying the elite institutions like Harvard. Here’s another path - the elite employers could start hiring from a broader range of institutions. Of course a Harvard professor wants to maintain the value of a Harvard degree. But that isn’t the only way to achieve the end goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well duh. The 0.1% are probably either highly connected or donors (or both).

right. but they are not the interesting part. what do you think of the results for the 60-99%?

Given the above, as well as a known preference for admitting 1st generation and minorities, I'm not surprised the 60-99% gets the shaft.

Yes, focus on that, not the fact they are not overrepresented unlike the other groups the article talks about.

Nice very nice, keep them fight amongst each other and not focus on us.

I just found it interesting, as there are a number of posters here who claim there is no bias against the this percentile. I've always just accepted this, even though it didn't seem to agree with my experience. Now I know I was write. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing, I don't know. But it is a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity.”

cool.But what are the "elite" colleges? Are we talking about the Ivies only, or those in the top 25 USNWR? or what?

The article mentions the 8 Ivies + MIT, Stanford, Duke and UChicago.

But all this is much ado about nothing. This myopic focus on so-called “elite” universities is senseless. The boundaries are arbitrary and the fact is there are literally hundreds of really good universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well duh. The 0.1% are probably either highly connected or donors (or both).

right. but they are not the interesting part. what do you think of the results for the 60-99%?

Given the above, as well as a known preference for admitting 1st generation and minorities, I'm not surprised the 60-99% gets the shaft.

Yes, focus on that, not the fact they are not overrepresented unlike the other groups the article talks about.

Nice very nice, keep them fight amongst each other and not focus on us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well duh. The 0.1% are probably either highly connected or donors (or both).

right. but they are not the interesting part. what do you think of the results for the 60-99%?

Given the above, as well as a known preference for admitting 1st generation and minorities, I'm not surprised the 60-99% gets the shaft.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with letting wealthy people into a prestigious college. Just like there is nothing wrong with colleges trying to ensure their classes have a diversity of backgrounds.

So, a discriminatory bias towards letting more wealthy people into prestigious colleges is fine, but don't dare to try to ensure classes have a diversity of backgrounds? That is illegal?