A Tale of Two Admission Policies and Three Sets of Ivies

Parents Forum
61

<p>Mini, what you say about spending in different parts of the same state is manifestly UNtrue of Minnesota, which had a funding equalization statute (referred to as the "Minnesota miracle") that got our governor on the cover of Time magazine back in the 1970s. There is only one problem: now, many decades later, the high-spending cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have schoolteacher unions with cushy contracts, but no educational achievement to show for the spending, and considerable outward flight to other school districts and into private schools by a large percentage of Minneapolis and St. Paul residents. </p>

<p>International comparisons make even more untenable the idea that spending more on schools necessarily results in better educational outcomes. Most of the countries that do better than the United States in [TIMSS[/url</a>] outcomes spend less per student than is spent in the United States. They are often poorer, more multilingual countries in general, but that doesn't stop the schoolchildren from learning their lessons better. </p>

<p>I'd be happy to spend more, in taxes levied on myself, if I could be sure that that would result in better educational outcomes for my meagerly educated neighbors. That would give my children more neighbor children with whom they could share interests other than professional wrestling. But I would rather work for [url=<a href="http://learninfreedom.org/system.html%5Dsystem"&gt;http://learninfreedom.org/system.html]system&lt;/a> reform](<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/timss/%5DTIMSS%5B/url"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/timss/) than pour more money into the same system.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
so the unions lobbied for smaller class sizes and claimed a direct correlation with "Better education".

[/quote]

token adult
[quote]
I'd be happy to spend more, in taxes levied on myself, if I could be sure that that would result in better educational outcomes for my meagerly educated neighbors.

[/quote]

Both of you... I am tired of people claiming the public schools are ineffectual (have you looked at the charter school data lately? they do much worse than public schools given the same population), and I would love for you to come teach a day in my class, and to tell me that there is no correlation between class size and better education. I have 21 kindergarteners, 1 labeled Emotionally-disturbed and one on anti-psychotic meds who will be labeled ED , (they are in my class due to the "least restrictive environment" rule), 2 with speech impairments, 4 who are ESL, 2 with ADD and 1 with ADHD (not medicated). Some of my students have parents in jail, chronic lice, impetigo, asthma, leaky roofs - they leave my school because they've moved in with their aunt, and then they come back because they are moving in with their mother's boyfriend's sister, and then they are gone because she can't make the rent. And I tutor before school, and many of our teachers tutor afterschool 5 days a week, AND TEACH SATURDAY SCHOOL, and it is HARD with 20 or 22 kids in the classroom, because they have incredible needs. And if you look at our scores in the newspaper and shake your head and say, "Oh, that school only received 'acceptable' on the math portion of the test, and they had a 'poor' grade on the science test. See! Throwing money at our public school system doesn't work!" ..then you haven't a clue.</p>

63

<p>You tell 'em, anxiousmom.</p>

64

<p>And I had to go back to my post and edit the number of students in my class because I got the number wrong. 2 new students were added to my class this week, and one moved to another school. We are working the miracles that we can, given the resources we have. If you want to fix the schools, take care of prenatal care, housing shortages, job education, living wage, prison reform, parental and parenting education, drug abuse and alchohol counselling, relationship counselling, health care, free contraceptives, and subsidized child care - AND YOU WILL BE AMAZED at how effective public schools will be. ZAP, presto, a cure.</p>

65

<p>Tokenadult - I'm waiting for you to volunteer your progeny. If you want to know whether it will result in better outcomes, do it for three generations (with your progeny in the schools that get half); then come back and we'll talk.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting for volunteers rather than excuses. I can send you the list of schools involved in Williams if you like.</p>

66

<p>Well, Mini, like you did I homeschool. I am an active school volunteer wherever I live, which has been various places over the years. I would be happy to visit the school of any teacher who can arrange for me to visit, if I can figure out a way to make the trip. (I have visited the local schools, of course, and I do try to read their budgets and their lists of achievements. I've posted Web links to the some of those latter documents on this CC board before.) It's because I have lived in some conspicuously poor places and yet have seen better results that I'm skeptical about how the money is spent here in the States. </p>

<p>Oh, and just an edit to answer a specific question from Anxiousmom, yes, I have followed the charter school movement quite closely because it originated in my state and I have many friends with children enrolled in charter schools. I haven't been interested in signing up my children for daily attendance at any classroom school in town, but I know of charter schools that are serving some local parents better than any of the conventional public schools that they have tried--and open enrollment in our state means that parents can try a lot of different government-operated schools. </p>

<p>What can you do to facilitate a visit to your school? I travel rarely these days, because of my dad's poor health, but I have taken up teachers on offers to visit their classes before, at my own expense.</p>

67

<p>Whenever a similar discussion arises on CC, most examples tend to be extreme. It is true that many teachers work in harsh conditions. It is true that the schools presented by Mini should not be acceptable. However, it is equally unacceptable to dismiss taxpayers' questions on the basis of higher moral grounds. For every egregious example on an overworked teacher, one could find an example of organized theft, cronyism, and blatant incompetence, especially in union infested districts. For every example of dismal conditions, one could find schools that used the windfall from funding redistributing plans -like the Robin Hood in Texas- to build lavish athletic facilities or invest in technology that gathers dust. One should wonder why new schools have to look like country-clubs! There is no money for books or pencils, but finding money for football uniforms never seems to be a big problem in Bubba Land. For every example of a dedicated teacher, one could find teachers who are fighting tooth and nail for exemptions from the most basic exams, often with the obnoxious support of unions. </p>

<p>And yes, all of this happens in Texas! Taxpayers are happy to support education, but there is ample proof that spending without accountability is a recipe for disaster. Schools districts that spend more than 50% on administrative costs are a disgrace. The salaries and perks paid to superintendants -when honest ones can be located- are mind-boggling. Teachers and families are the victims of a system that is rotten to the core. </p>

<p>Asking for more money has always been a path of least resistance. This path, however, leads to nowhere. We spend more than most countries and regress in the comparative rankings. I have tutored kids in poor areas of Mexico. The teachers earn less than $500 a month, there is one computer in a school of 500 students. Yet, the students could run circles around US kids in math and sciences. It is hard to imagine how advanced 9th graders are in Physics and Trigonometry. Actually, it is not that hard to understand: students spend 36-40 hours a week on IMPORTANT classroom education that is free of a lot of the BS expected in the US. There are almost no ECs and little parents' participation. Teachers teach and students study. How hard is that? </p>

<p>The only solution requires everybody to assume a part of the blame and accept that the current system needs to be overhauled by cutting the fat with vengeance.</p>

68

<p>about the difference between the EA and ED schools. </p>

<p>I will not let my children apply to any school ED. To me it is a 'contract' with perhaps the most critical term missing, the financial component. Applying ED is an easier decision to make if you do not have to worry about the financial component. At least with EA you get to weigh other offers.</p>

<p>I also have an issue with SCEA. In order to qualify for merit aid at a number of schools you need to apply EA. SCEA could knock you out of the merit aid pool at another school. I suspect that the use of SCEA will still need to be worked out, note Stanford's update to their SCEA policy on thier web-site. Better but still an issue.</p>

<p>Perhaps the schools know what they are doing. Students who have options may not attend thus decreasing their yield and selectivity.</p>

69

<p>Mini, AnxiousMom made my point for me. Throwing cash at a school system where the underlying problem is deep-rooted social pathology doesn't solve the problem. AnxiousMom, the issue isn't your class size... the issue is that you've been asked to assume that your special needs kids, kids with medical issues who don't sleep in the same bed for more than twice a week, kids who may eat donuts for breakfast on the days they get breakfast, are a "classroom" out of a "leave it to Beaver" episode.</p>

70

<p>Thanks anxiousmom, every now and then I need something to help me justify my private school expenditure!</p>

71

<p>It will be past everyone's lifetimes before K-12 problems at the publics are solved. Find the diamonds in the rough, admit, and remediate.</p>

<p>To Cangel, last year there was another Ivy admit in your area, presidential scholar-type African American, one of the top eight students in the state and the only one of the eight south of Birmingham, who turned down Harvard for Yale - and Harvard was ready to deal. Maybe other issues besides money affecting choices.</p>

72

<p>An interesting article from the Yale Daily News about financial aid packages and student debt</p>

<p>April 11, 2005
Some students see red long after their graduation day
Debts burden some graduates years after they leave Yale</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29137%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29137&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

73

<p>Zuma, yeah, I know a little about that situation as well, although she, if I'm remember correctly, is a county over from me. My impression from the newspaper and personal knowledge is that none of the 3 girls were "in poverty" - less than 40K, when you are talking about Ivy schools - all 3 were in a position to add some funds to their education, but the girl you are referring to probably was the lowest income of the 3, possibly the best student, and, as we have discussed many times on this forum, probably got the most aid, and was the best able to deal.
The other Af-Am val, whose story was taken up by the national news as well, their round figure income was published in the paper (pretty tacky, huh) I won't repeat it, but the family seemed solidly in the group we talk about here as benefitting from merit aid - she got Emory's best deal, with summer stipends and travel, that kind of stuff. The girl from daughter's school, I think, both had less out of pocket at UVa, and maybe felt more comfortable going there.</p>

<p>That was my point, anyway, most kids around here who apply to Ivies still apply to Harvard just because it is famous, and even the ones with realistic chances turn them down - how many do they have to take from underrepresented areas to get one to come?</p>

74

<p>Harvard probably is more successful in attracting URMs than many other schools that are trying very hard to diversify. They are caught in a Catch-22 situation: they try to attract more minority students, but those students either do not apply or turn them down if admitted because of their low minority representation.</p>

75

<p>Marite:</p>

<p>Both Harvard and Swarthmore are historically among the most ethnic/racially diverse campuses in the Northeast and have the largest non-white percentages today. However, you have identified the Catch-22 and reason that, no matter how much affirmative action preferece they give, they can't achieve further gains. The yield among Af-Am admits (and Latino/a to a lesser degree) is abysmal. Despite 25 more years of agressive affirmative action, Swarthmore's percentage of Af-Am students is lower today than it was in 1980.</p>

<p>One of the more frightening trends for fans of campus diversity is the wholesale shift away from need-based aid to a merit aid pricing structure. The few remaining need-based aid schools are increasingly getting out-bid for URM students from higher socio-economic categories by schools who will give merit aid packages despite the family's ability to pay. </p>

<p>It's devastating to low-income groups at the merit aid schools because the merit money is coming directly out of the need-based aid budget. It is also putting the need-based aid schools in an increasing competitive bind. It is quite possible that, as the echo boom glut of applicants subsides, there will be few if any schools that can continue a pure need-based aid policy. The end result will be elite college admissions becoming even less diverse with low-income kids again shut out of the game.</p>

76

<p>"they try to attract more minority students, but those students either do not apply or turn them down if admitted because of their low minority representation."</p>

<p>Well, they just don't try very hard. Amherst could do (250% more Pell Grantees than Harvard); Smith could do it (450%); Swarthmore could do it, etc. Harvard actually does very well with minority representation, as long as they are wealthy. But to attract and sustain a high-quality, low-income pool can take at least a decade (as Amherst found out); it means recruiting in different places than traditionally, and doing so consistently; it means a re-examination of the admissions process (how much "EC credit" do you ascribe to working 30 hours a week to help feed the family, which means you don't have time for virtually any other ECs); how much money you want to put into student pre-prep; do you want your admissions officers visiting schools where they will get at most 1 or 2 candidates a year? It's hard work - if they want to step up to the game, they can - it is, after all, Harvard, and I presume they get precisely what it is they intend.</p>

<p>"Mini, AnxiousMom made my point for me. Throwing cash at a school system where the underlying problem is deep-rooted social pathology doesn't solve the problem."</p>

<p>Blossom - I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your kids don't have any "deep-rooted social pathology" (i.e. that they're poor.) Since money doesn't matter, may I send you the list of schools for your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids to attend? Come on, you can step up to the plate, it won't matter. Money doesn't make a difference. Your kids don't have social pathologies, and I'm sure they'll do just fine anyway. Right? Want to volunteer to find out?</p>

<p>Just say yes, and I'll send you the list of schools, and you can choose the one of your choice.</p>

77

<p>Mini, two of your favorites items of contention are: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>The number of Pell grants in a college indicates their desire or willingness to accept low-income students</p></li>
<li><p>The SAT scores are a better reflection of the income level of the testtakers than their abilities. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>If I was to agree with your two statements, I would not consider it very surprising that there is difference between schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton on one hand and schools such as Smith, Mount Holyoke, or Occidental on the other hand. </p>

<p>To get started, assuming that the scores are indeed lower, would it NOT be fair to note that Harvard has a MUCH smaller pool of low-income students that matches its admissions criteria? A 1400 score is well below Harvard's mean score, but is well above the 75% quartile at Smith and MHC. So, a 1250 students has much more chances to be accepted at Smith and MHC than at Harvard. Before being able to give a Pell grant to a student, a school has to be able to accept a student!</p>

<p>Then you have to look at the motives. Harvard, despite being MORE generous than MHC with financial aid, does not have the same commercial pressure to recruit students with lower scores or higher financial need. To ensure that the flow of applicants does not diminish too rapidly, it is a necessity for MHC to lower the bar in admissions' criteria and compete with financial aid. The discounting of 45% of its income is part of its marketing plan. Behind the apparent generosity, it is not hard to find a hardnosed and savvy marketer that does not hesitate to hire the best consultants to build the correct image! Do not take my word for it, read the information available at the website. </p>

<p>Lastly, when measuring the number of Pell grants at schools that have comparable admission's criteria, one needs to evaluate them in absolute numbers versus percentages. In other words, one needs to compare the number of Pell grants at Harvard versus the numbers at Amherst. </p>

<p>:)</p>

78

<p>Mini, I don't think that what Blossom means is that the money means nothing in the cases of these poor schools. I work on a volunteer basis at a very deprived highschool, and though, yes, it could use money, that alone is not going to solve the problems there. The school did get a large infusion of money a few years ago when some expose was done showing the terrible facilities, outdated books, over crowded room, dinghy, dirty halls. The school was spruced up, computers and books bought, all sorts of improvements, and we are now right back where we were. And the extra money is just sucked right up. I would hung from the rafters to really push for the ony solution that I can see that would work somewhat, which is to integrate this innercity school and a few others with the better suburban schools so that you have a good socioeconomic mix. The only kids who are at this school are ones who have families that do not care, and so no one is advocating for the kids. These families have many problems more pressing than their kid's high school. That too needs to be addressed. </p>

<p>Wilmington, Delaware, integrated their innercity schools with suburbia many years ago, and overall it has been a success. Unfortunately most of us who can afford it would not submit our kids to such a venture. Though the overall test scores and results have been a success, there are kids who were in the nice suburban schools who did not do so well as a result of this integration. As someone whose kids are all in private schools, it would not even be a thought for me. I cannot tolerate the lack of directed attention to my little adopted ones, all who have some issues, at the decent public schools here and am paying to get the best possible education, environment and advantages for them. In a sense, money didn't matter, in that I was determined to scrape it up somehow as I did for my nephew 15 years ago when it was clear where he was going at our city high school. It nearly broke us, but we paid to put him into a catholic school that could address his issues better, and get him away from some of the troublemakers he attracted. </p>

<p>I would love to see some changes for the kids at this highschool, but I don't know where to begin. Could not even say how to spend the money if we got some, how much we need to make a difference, and it seems like they are spending more money getting experts to make those determination than on the problem, and the school is going even further downhill. I do the best I can, in my tiny where I can talk to kids about future education. Someday, it may make a little difference in someone. But these kids would not be able to cut it for a moment at any of the elite school, or even as a freshman at decent public highschools, they are so far behind. College is not really the big deal. They never got a decent educational grounding to begin with. I feel like the schools that your father is running in a third world country addresses the needs of those kids better than anything we have here. I have absolutely no idea what to suggest. They cannot even keep the bathrooms at the school clean and safe. So throwing cash at this problem which has been and is being done has only made some temporary changes. </p>

<p>I also don't think our personal choices for our kids reflect our feeling about those far less fortunate. I don't think sending my kids to the high school where I work, for instance, is going to do a whole lot for the kids there; but is dangerous for my kids. I don't find it hypocritical to put one's children in private schools while seeking answers to the public schools' problems. I do know that the schools are more receptive to changes in some areas where there are still familie in the public city schools but there is that tension that flight could occur if the standards are not shored up. I know that as troublesome as my nephew was at that public school, they were nearly panic stricken when I pulled him out. But the changes needed were just too far reaching and no amount of money was going to make enough of a difference in the two years of high school he had left. He needed a ready made infrastructure, and as much as he hated his freedom being curtailed, it did make a difference for him. I would have loved to have sent all of my kids to the public schools in the city, but for whatever reason, it was not the best option for any of them. But kids whose parents don't or can't care do not have these options.</p>

79

<p>Xiggi - Your argument disappears almost in its entirety when you put Amherst into the picture. And, yes, it is percentages that matter. Don't like to look at Amherst? Try Berkeley. But other than that, we agree - Harvard gets who it wants; it has virtually no commercial pressure, and if their percentage of low-income students is low, it is because they intend it that way. (And, yes, some of the admissions criteria might have to change (though that is unproven; there are an awful lot of low-income kids in this country (like 40% of all students? and some of them REAL smart) - they'd have to accept low-income students with the same SAT scores as their football players and developmental admits, and develop a way to recodify their consideration of ECs.)</p>

<p>"Could not even say how to spend the money if we got some, how much we need to make a difference, and it seems like they are spending more money getting experts to make those determination than on the problem, and the school is going even further downhill."</p>

<p>It takes three generations. Simply ensure the spending at the poorer schools doubles that of high-income schools for three generations (just as the opposite was true for five generations) - this is not some kind of reparation, just equal treatment over a period of generations - and see where you end up.</p>

<p>"I don't think sending my kids to the high school where I work, for instance, is going to do a whole lot for the kids there; but is dangerous for my kids."</p>

<p>So I take it you're not volunteering your kids. Well, they don't need your kids - they need your money. For three generations. And, yes, money WILL solve the problems -- if you read the list of problems in the Williams v. California lawsuit, ALL of them were solvable with money. Just lots of it, consistently available, over time.</p>

<p>(By the way, I do appreciate all the efforts you do on behalf of schools and the kids there.)</p>

80

<p>Amherst has been successful sub-contracting their minority and low-income recruiting to an outside agency, the Questbridge group, since 1994. That is the "10-year effort" you are talking about.</p>

<p>I don't know that this represents greater or lesser "effort" than schools that have invested significant resources for an in-house effort, such as the summer pre-prep program for minority applicants that Swarthmore, Haverford, and Bryn Mawr have jointly operated for the last 25 years.</p>

<p>Subcontracting diversity recruiting is probably more efficient, at least in the early stages when all of the applicants are being fed to a half dozen schools. This was the kind of advantage the early-adaptors of aggressive affirmative action recruiting enjoyed in the 1970s and 80s. For example, the collleges who recruited from the NYC public magnet schools.</p>

<p>There are many things to fault Harvard for, but the amount of money and student resources they poor into academic enrichment programs in the most at-risk public housing neighborhoods of metro-Boston is staggering. The fact that the kids they help may end up going to Bentley or Endicott or UMass rather than Harvard is no less of a win-win outcome.</p>

<p>To me, the most troublesome aspect of a quota-based affirmative action system is that it pounding square pegs into round holes may not be the way to achieve the ultimate goals. For example, is it really better for a dirt-poor kid from Beaufort, SC to go to Harvard and be totally out of his element and feel like a failure than to go to succeed at University of South Carolina on a full scholarship, and become a respected community leader and role model for the next 50 years in Beaufort?</p>

<p>The elite colleges battling for the best diversity kids is probably a great thing for producing Clarence Thomases and Condy Rices. But, on a systemic basis, is it undermining mainstream higher education in the US by skimming the cream off the top with arbitrary quotas?</p>

<p>Could it be that the real reason that URM numbers have stalled out at aggressive affirmative action elite schools is that the targeted consumers are smarter than the colleges think they are? Maybe these consumers simply don't view these elite colleges as being the end-all-and-be-all. Maybe they aren't that interested in being the "diversity" statistics that makes elite college administrators feel good about themselves?</p>

<p>On a systemic basis, I am much more concerned that the state university systems do a good job of targeting and recruiting in their under-served communities than I am about Harvard producing more African-American investment bankers.</p>