Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“A large new study, released Monday, shows that it has not been because these children had more impressive grades on average or took harder classes. They tended to have higher SAT scores and finely honed résumés, and applied at a higher rate — but they were overrepresented even after accounting for those things.”

this is about the 0.1%. But to me that is not the interesting story. the interesting story, which the author of the article mostly ignores (she has one sentence) is that the 60-99% percentile is the loser.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a gen x, boomer or elder millenial who attended a t10 school, how did you not get into top 1%

Like the well trodden path coupled with the greatest equity boom in the history of the market means that schools are right to give side eyes to alums who aren’t top 1% but also didn’t go into something like teaching at a school

Like if you are a gen x, and attended Penn (to use an example) - you have to really have been clueless or messed up not to be in the top .5%

You had access to top firms, then the bull market for 30 years would supercharged your financial position further

Can you please expound on what you are saying here keeping it tied to the data a little better? I don't think your logic makes a lot of sense but want to be sure.

So if I’m sitting at Penn in admission or development office, and I see larlo/larla are CAS ‘96 and didn’t come from family wealth - so obviously had to work — and now their kid is applying to Penn now but not in the top 1% — i would be puzzled as to what larlo/larla did with their Penn degree/opportunity given to them in the mid 90s

I would be concerned that this fam took an opportunity from someone else who would’ve better used their Penn degree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

That's not a challenge at all. The paper shows there are plenty of kids in the parental income 97-100% range who have high test scores and high GPA (i.e. they are studious). The trope that rich kids are lazy and stupid is simply false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were a gen x, boomer or elder millenial who attended a t10 school, how did you not get into top 1%

Like the well trodden path coupled with the greatest equity boom in the history of the market means that schools are right to give side eyes to alums who aren’t top 1% but also didn’t go into something like teaching at a school

Like if you are a gen x, and attended Penn (to use an example) - you have to really have been clueless or messed up not to be in the top .5%

You had access to top firms, then the bull market for 30 years would supercharged your financial position further

Can you please expound on what you are saying here keeping it tied to the data a little better? I don't think your logic makes a lot of sense but want to be sure.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing shocking in the article but it's good to see it in print.
As a HS senior back in 1990 at a private in NYC, it shocked and appalled me that all the kids of CEOs and famous people got into ivies. It no longer does.
It also confirms my suspicion about UVA. I was told that several boarding schools have a pipeline to the school, and from what I have seen, it's true.
Hopefully, this article puts some shame into the admissions offices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage those interested to read the paper or at least the non-technical summary. They also make their full data available. The key findings listed in the non-technical summary (https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf) are:
1. Ivy-Plus colleges are more than twice as likely to admit a student from a high-income family as compared to low- or middle-income families with comparable SAT/ACT scores.
2. Higher admission rates for students from high-income families can be attributed to three factors: preferences for children of alumni (legacies), higher non-academic ratings, and athletic recruitment.
3. The three factors underlying the high-income admissions advantage are not associated with better post-college outcomes; in contrast, SAT/ACT scores and academic ratings are highly predictive of post-college success.
4. Attending an Ivy-Plus instead of a flagship public college triples students’ chances of obtaining jobs at prestigious firms and substantially increases their chances of earning in the top 1%.
5. By changing their admissions policies, Ivy-Plus colleges could significantly diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of America’s highest earners and leaders.

The consequences of #2: "This higher admissions rate leads to 103 extra students from the top 1% in a typical Ivy-Plus class (of 1,650 students) relative to a benchmark in which students are admitted at the same rates across the parental income distribution conditional on their test scores." Legacy admission policies account for about 47 of the 103 extra students from the top 1%. Non-academic ratings account for 31 of the 103. Athletic recruitment accounts for another 25.

Based on a quick reading, my take is that the 4th finding may be on the weakest grounds, as it's based on data on admitted vs non-admitted waitlisted students to Ivy-plus univs. A clever approach to causal inference, but one that hinges on the assumption that admissions from the waitlist are largely "exogenous" to the applicant's attributes (economic, academic, non-academic) that they look at. This basically makes the outcome differences between waitlisters who are accepted (to Ivy-Plus) vs non-accepted (who attended leading public univs) a valid measure of the "impact" of Ivy-Plus colleges.

Agreed---#4 is a not accurate analysis. Studies actually show that kids who could get into T25 schools do EQUALLY well when they attend a state university/lower ranked school. It's the drive/motivation/work ethic that makes up 98-99% of your success in life---the connections at a T25 are only a small part. Fact is the kids who have the curated resumes, high scores, high gpa, excellent ECs, drive to succeed will do just that no matter where they attend.

Did you read the article? This wasn’t as broad of a statement - they’re talking about getting into the 1%. I don’t have the two studies side by side but I don’t think these two observations are necessarily inconsistent.

Anonymous wrote:If you were a gen x, boomer or elder millenial who attended a t10 school, how did you not get into top 1%

Like the well trodden path coupled with the greatest equity boom in the history of the market means that schools are right to give side eyes to alums who aren’t top 1% but also didn’t go into something like teaching at a school

Like if you are a gen x, and attended Penn (to use an example) - you have to really have been clueless or messed up not to be in the top .5%

You had access to top firms, then the bull market for 30 years would supercharged your financial position further

Anonymous wrote:Do colleges know parent income if student does not apply for financial aid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage those interested to read the paper or at least the non-technical summary. They also make their full data available. The key findings listed in the non-technical summary (https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf) are:
1. Ivy-Plus colleges are more than twice as likely to admit a student from a high-income family as compared to low- or middle-income families with comparable SAT/ACT scores.
2. Higher admission rates for students from high-income families can be attributed to three factors: preferences for children of alumni (legacies), higher non-academic ratings, and athletic recruitment.
3. The three factors underlying the high-income admissions advantage are not associated with better post-college outcomes; in contrast, SAT/ACT scores and academic ratings are highly predictive of post-college success.
4. Attending an Ivy-Plus instead of a flagship public college triples students’ chances of obtaining jobs at prestigious firms and substantially increases their chances of earning in the top 1%.
5. By changing their admissions policies, Ivy-Plus colleges could significantly diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of America’s highest earners and leaders.

The consequences of #2: "This higher admissions rate leads to 103 extra students from the top 1% in a typical Ivy-Plus class (of 1,650 students) relative to a benchmark in which students are admitted at the same rates across the parental income distribution conditional on their test scores." Legacy admission policies account for about 47 of the 103 extra students from the top 1%. Non-academic ratings account for 31 of the 103. Athletic recruitment accounts for another 25.

Based on a quick reading, my take is that the 4th finding may be on the weakest grounds, as it's based on data on admitted vs non-admitted waitlisted students to Ivy-plus univs. A clever approach to causal inference, but one that hinges on the assumption that admissions from the waitlist are largely "exogenous" to the applicant's attributes (economic, academic, non-academic) that they look at. This basically makes the outcome differences between waitlisters who are accepted (to Ivy-Plus) vs non-accepted (who attended leading public univs) a valid measure of the "impact" of Ivy-Plus colleges.

Agreed---#4 is a not accurate analysis. Studies actually show that kids who could get into T25 schools do EQUALLY well when they attend a state university/lower ranked school. It's the drive/motivation/work ethic that makes up 98-99% of your success in life---the connections at a T25 are only a small part. Fact is the kids who have the curated resumes, high scores, high gpa, excellent ECs, drive to succeed will do just that no matter where they attend.

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was interesting about outcomes from Ivy:

"The researchers did a novel analysis to measure whether attending one of these colleges causes success later in life. They compared students who were wait-listed and got in, with those who didn’t and attended another college instead. Consistent with previous research, they found that attending an Ivy instead of one of the top nine public flagships did not meaningfully increase graduates’ income, on average. However, it did increase a student’s predicted chance of earning in the top 1 percent to 19 percent, from 12 percent."

So basically the primary income outcome advantage to an Ivy is you get a stronger shot at being in the top 1%.

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage those interested to read the paper or at least the non-technical summary. They also make their full data available. The key findings listed in the non-technical summary (https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Nontech.pdf) are:
1. Ivy-Plus colleges are more than twice as likely to admit a student from a high-income family as compared to low- or middle-income families with comparable SAT/ACT scores.
2. Higher admission rates for students from high-income families can be attributed to three factors: preferences for children of alumni (legacies), higher non-academic ratings, and athletic recruitment.
3. The three factors underlying the high-income admissions advantage are not associated with better post-college outcomes; in contrast, SAT/ACT scores and academic ratings are highly predictive of post-college success.
4. Attending an Ivy-Plus instead of a flagship public college triples students’ chances of obtaining jobs at prestigious firms and substantially increases their chances of earning in the top 1%.
5. By changing their admissions policies, Ivy-Plus colleges could significantly diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of America’s highest earners and leaders.

The consequences of #2: "This higher admissions rate leads to 103 extra students from the top 1% in a typical Ivy-Plus class (of 1,650 students) relative to a benchmark in which students are admitted at the same rates across the parental income distribution conditional on their test scores." Legacy admission policies account for about 47 of the 103 extra students from the top 1%. Non-academic ratings account for 31 of the 103. Athletic recruitment accounts for another 25.

Based on a quick reading, my take is that the 4th finding may be on the weakest grounds, as it's based on data on admitted vs non-admitted waitlisted students to Ivy-plus univs. A clever approach to causal inference, but one that hinges on the assumption that admissions from the waitlist are largely "exogenous" to the applicant's attributes (economic, academic, non-academic) that they look at. This basically makes the outcome differences between waitlisters who are accepted (to Ivy-Plus) vs non-accepted (who attended leading public univs) a valid measure of the "impact" of Ivy-Plus colleges.

Anonymous wrote:hat said the challenge is finding high income students who are absolutely committed to staying the full four years as well as academically willing to put in the effort to satisfy the graduation requirements that are tied to the university ranking. This is no trivial challenge, finding high income students who are also studious.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the colleges should look more closely at outcomes:

“Legacy students, athletes and private school students do no better after college, in terms of earnings or reaching a top graduate school or firm, it found. In fact, they generally do somewhat worse.”