Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is an extremely bright, upper middle class (HHI $170k) student at Princeton. We receive $47k in financial aid this year.

Depending on where you live, $170k is not UMC. In NYC for example, it is MC and hard to live on if you have kids.

Do you have any significant assets or no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am imagining myself as a 17 year old at a crap school with my IQ. I could pretty easily skate by and get As while getting 1400. Versus getting As at Andover or whatever and getting 1550. Yeah it is lame and shitty to be poor but not necessarily too hard to stand out academically. You’ve got no competition

I don’t get it…did you have an UMC upbringing? I mean imagine your entire life being poor…not just somehow transporting yourself to 17 only poor at that one moment in time. You are implying your intelligence was hereditary.

Let’s pull a Trading Places. Take some billionaire’s kid and have them grow up poor in a terrible neighborhood and do the reverse for the poor kid. They get all the trappings of wealth and get to go to Exeter.

I will bet you $1 how it turns out.

The scientific evidence shows that intelligence is largely hereditary/genetic. Look into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean that means 33% of the student body is still paying over $80,000 a year. I’d say in my friend group only 20% of families could afford to send their kids to a Princeton priced school full pay and everyone went to college/most to grad school.

What percentage of that 33% is extremely wealthy? I bet it's extremely high.

This kind of barbell demographics (poor and super rich) make for some really weird social dynamics. My kids attend a DC private and it's a microcosm of this: you have financial aid kids and extremely wealthy kids and very, very few in between. Almost no one is the child of two feds or a doctor and a teacher. They'e either the kid of a single parent or a CEO. And as much as the high school wishes the two groups would mix, they rarely become more than superficial friends.

Our kids are in a private in Manhattan, and this is my observation too.

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is an extremely bright, upper middle class (HHI $170k) student at Princeton. We receive $47k in financial aid this year.

Depending on where you live, $170k is not UMC. In NYC for example, it is MC and hard to live on if you have kids.

Anonymous wrote:I am imagining myself as a 17 year old at a crap school with my IQ. I could pretty easily skate by and get As while getting 1400. Versus getting As at Andover or whatever and getting 1550. Yeah it is lame and shitty to be poor but not necessarily too hard to stand out academically. You’ve got no competition

I don’t get it…did you have an UMC upbringing? I mean imagine your entire life being poor…not just somehow transporting yourself to 17 only poor at that one moment in time. You are implying your intelligence was hereditary.

Let’s pull a Trading Places. Take some billionaire’s kid and have them grow up poor in a terrible neighborhood and do the reverse for the poor kid. They get all the trappings of wealth and get to go to Exeter.

I will bet you $1 how it turns out.

I am imagining myself as a 17 year old at a crap school with my IQ. I could pretty easily skate by and get As while getting 1400. Versus getting As at Andover or whatever and getting 1550. Yeah it is lame and shitty to be poor but not necessarily too hard to stand out academically. You’ve got no competition

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.[/quote]

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”[/quote]

DP: grit isn’t exclusive to the poor and working class. Unfortunately, in the world of college admissions it is easier to measure or identify in the underprivileged kid. [/quote]

Seriously? If you don’t get it, you don’t get it [/quote]

Honestly it’s probably more difficult to survive some cutthroat upper echelon environment than to coast through with no competition in some broken or mediocre public school system. [/quote]

Hmm…I guess you just ignore likely food insecurity, possibly having to raise your younger siblings, work a FT job as well? But sure convince yourself it’s harder for those rich kids.[/quote]

It potentially is because the poor kids who land at Ivy League schools a) aren’t not eating and b) aren’t being challenged. It sucks to be poor but it mainly involves a lot of sitting around. [/quote]

I am trying to understand your point but it is hard to translate a**speak. Anybody on DCUM able to translate for me?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.[/quote]

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”[/quote]

DP: grit isn’t exclusive to the poor and working class. Unfortunately, in the world of college admissions it is easier to measure or identify in the underprivileged kid. [/quote]

Seriously? If you don’t get it, you don’t get it [/quote]

Honestly it’s probably more difficult to survive some cutthroat upper echelon environment than to coast through with no competition in some broken or mediocre public school system. [/quote]

Hmm…I guess you just ignore likely food insecurity, possibly having to raise your younger siblings, work a FT job as well? But sure convince yourself it’s harder for those rich kids.[/quote]

It potentially is because the poor kids who land at Ivy League schools a) aren’t not eating and b) aren’t being challenged. It sucks to be poor but it mainly involves a lot of sitting around.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.[/quote]

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”[/quote]

DP: grit isn’t exclusive to the poor and working class. Unfortunately, in the world of college admissions it is easier to measure or identify in the underprivileged kid. [/quote]

Seriously? If you don’t get it, you don’t get it [/quote]

Honestly it’s probably more difficult to survive some cutthroat upper echelon environment than to coast through with no competition in some broken or mediocre public school system. [/quote]

Hmm…I guess you just ignore likely food insecurity, possibly having to raise your younger siblings, work a FT job as well? But sure convince yourself it’s harder for those rich kids.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.[/quote]

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”[/quote]

DP: grit isn’t exclusive to the poor and working class. Unfortunately, in the world of college admissions it is easier to measure or identify in the underprivileged kid. [/quote]

Seriously? If you don’t get it, you don’t get it [/quote]

Honestly it’s probably more difficult to survive some cutthroat upper echelon environment than to coast through with no competition in some broken or mediocre public school system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”

DP: grit isn’t exclusive to the poor and working class. Unfortunately, in the world of college admissions it is easier to measure or identify in the underprivileged kid.

Seriously? If you don’t get it, you don’t get it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I find it hard to believe and overly idealistic to think you can bring any student up with a little extra tutoring to the point where they are on par with the absolute best in the country. It's arguably admirable Princeton is doing this, and I prefer the focus on economic based disadvantages over racial preferences, but there can be too much of a good thing. I mean, you admit it yourself, the quality of the students entering is shockingly worse than just five years ago. The idea that after a few hours with a professor this gap disappears does not ring true to me. I am thinking back to the difference in my roommates who were admitted based almost entirely on academic merit and the ones who were recruited athletes. The ones admitted on academic merit were, in a very real sense, geniuses. The athletes were bright. No amount of extra attention would ever bring my athlete roommates up to the intellectual capability of my academic merit roommates. Just as no amount of extra attention would transform my academic merit roommates into elite athletes. I think what they are doing now is bring bright kids into the school who help them fulfill the social/political agenda but it's a zero sum game, so they are squeezing out really really really bright kids. Sure, the bright kids may be smart enough and gritty enough to graduate with a lot of tutoring, but Princeton is supposed to be a factory for intellectual leaders of the future (at least in my opinion) not just bright kids who can get by in a competitive world.

You really think the leaders of our country - Congress, governors, mayors, etc., are geniuses? Also, no one is talking about a few hours of tutoring. What they mean is that by junior year, the low income kids have mostly caught up with the elite kids academically. You are nuts lady and not too bright either

This guy is. Mid-nineties grad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis

Yes, Polis is very bright! People like Ted Cruz and Wes Moore have specific credentials that would lead you to believe they might be genius level too.

They ARE geniuses. Ted was number one debater in the country.

Well, that supports the argument that we are better off without geniuses leading the country

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

LOL

Princeton does not recruit world class athletes. If they were world class they would not be at Princeton.

Can't be easy finding world class students who are also good at sports. As it is Princeton's roster is full of dudes from England, Australia, Canada, China.

And here you are acting like they are recruiting illiterate children from Trenton

Well, they do recruit world class athletes but you probably consider them niche sports.

I think one of the top fencers in the country (maybe the world) is a freshman at Princeton (GDS grad I believe.

Ivy schools usually are in the Top 20 in lacrosse. I don’t know if there are any world competitions in lacrosse.

Ivy schools are tops for crew, squash, etc.

Fencing?!?

Stop it.

Princeton track and field is now among top in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”

DP: grit isn’t exclusive to the poor and working class. Unfortunately, in the world of college admissions it is easier to measure or identify in the underprivileged kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

LOL

Princeton does not recruit world class athletes. If they were world class they would not be at Princeton.

Can't be easy finding world class students who are also good at sports. As it is Princeton's roster is full of dudes from England, Australia, Canada, China.

And here you are acting like they are recruiting illiterate children from Trenton

Well, they do recruit world class athletes but you probably consider them niche sports.

I think one of the top fencers in the country (maybe the world) is a freshman at Princeton (GDS grad I believe.

Ivy schools usually are in the Top 20 in lacrosse. I don’t know if there are any world competitions in lacrosse.

Ivy schools are tops for crew, squash, etc.

Fencing?!?

Stop it.