<p>Mathmom: LOL!</p>
<p>Ben: I agree that the percentage is far higher for development prospects than for the general population of applicants. But let's say that 200+ students at Harvard all in that category. That's 200+ out of a student body of 6,000+. Out of those 200+ some may well be underqualified, but perhaps not all. So, let's say 100-150+ are underqualified. Their impact on the student body will be marginal at best.<br>
None of them seems to have shown up in my S's classes!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The feds provide 85% or more of the RESEARCH funds, but much less toward instruction. And most of that is indirect, through loans and fellowships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This point is often made, but it's wrong. See my (simple and naive) textbooks/movies example above. The federal research money allows a huge fraction of the endowment and other money to support undergrad education. This is a classic indirect subsidy. Reams of economic research show that earmarked subsidies affect behavior very much like plain old gifts. The spender just spends the labeled money on what it's labeled for (which was very similar to what he was going to do anyway) and in effect has more money left for anything he wants to do.</p>
<p>I don't know about Jody Foster, but Sarah Hughes had excellent SAT scores.</p>
<p>newmassdad:</p>
<p>I also work in higher ed, and I believe that Ben is substantially right. We look at money coming in as revenue streams. While it doesn't all go into exactly the same pot, it is quite true that a revenue stream that pays for things in one pot means that money doesn't have to be transferred from another pot to pay for those things.</p>
<p>So, there most certainly is a federal government subsidy of undergrad education virtually everywhere, and it is certainly higher at research institutions than at places less focused on research.</p>
<p>Believe me, I have played the budget game for a long time. If you think that funds allocated for research go completely into research, you haven't had your skeptic pill lately.</p>
<p>marite -- </p>
<p>
[quote]
None of them seems to have shown up in my S's classes!
[/quote]
Your son has good taste in classes ;-)</p>
<p>But, more seriously, I reject the qualified/underqualified distinction. The real question is how much academic excellence is sacrificed for "other reasons" -- sports, alumni interests, etc. That figure, I'd say, is much more than marginal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The real question is how much academic excellence is sacrificed for "other reasons" -- sports, alumni interests, etc. That figure, I'd say, is much more than marginal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It might be, but much as I like Caltech, I'm not sure that I'm bothered that so few schools are like it. I think the real problem is that people think the Ivy's are primarily about academics, whereas historically (and to some extent still), they are looking for leadership ability.</p>
<p>I think Ben Golub is correct in his explanation of the data re children of Committee on University Resources members. Is anyone shocked that the success rate for these people is only 50%? Really, I would have thought it would be higher. (It probably is.) We're talking about people who have given over $1 million to the university!</p>
<p>Does that "kill hope"? Give me a break! The 336 kids probably represent fewer than 20 kids/year, or about 1% of each class (assuming all of them went to Harvard College; the language of the article suggests maybe not). (I will add that the single most miserable person I knew at Yale was the grandson of a member of the Yale Corporation -- i.e., the board of trustees for the university. The kid barely could keep up with the work, and got dissed by just about everyone for being rich and stupid. He didn't really deserve that; neither was his fault. He hasn't had a great life since, either. His going to Yale was more about his grandfather and father than it was about him. But he was an exception. His older, even dumber brother didn't go to Yale; his younger, smarter siblings did, and did just fine. That particular Yale Corporation member had two sons and five grandchildren go to Yale over the course of about 30 years -- but he gave a lot more than $1 million to the university in 2006 dollars.)</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>Taken together, the various hooks and tips do have an impact on college life. Still, I think that college is more than classes. Caltech's focus on academic excellence alone not only is possible because of its focus on math/science, but also has produced a community that is very different from Harvard, Princeton or even MIT. It is not better or worse, just different.
When my S was considering where to apply, his top choices became Princeton and Harvard because of their more diverse student bodies (diverse not in terms of AA but in terms of academic and extra-curricular interests).</p>
<p>Prep schools send more than 15% to HYP class. Only 10% of those matriculated at HYP (10% of the 15% of the class going to HYP) were in top 20%.</p>
<p>At least 90% kid going from prep school to HYP has no NMSF; these students were not in top 20% among their class mates. However majority have one thing in common: legacy at HYP and have $$$$$$$$$$$$ resources (exclusing AA kids).</p>
<p>Correction: 90% students also include students recruited for sports, AA categories also. And AA kids may not have legacy or $$$$$$$$$$ as have no data available about them.</p>
<p>stockmarket, can you cite a source for your numbers?</p>
<p>marite -- it would be a strange world if Caltech were the typical college. I am not advocating for such a world. Still, these debates often hop from specific and questionable preferences (for water polo players or undistinguished children of big donors) to more abstract questions of diversity and breadth, which weren't the original topic. </p>
<p>Admitting a broad range of people, each of whom is among the best at what she does, is a laudable goal. Admitting people whose main virtue is their parents' wealth is a less laudable one from some points of view. This book is about nurturing a debate about the optimal balance between those goals.</p>
<p>Sorry no comprehensive data but it can be complied. NMSF awards in school newspapers or publications, top 20% awards school ceremony, and school telephone directory and facebook where they are finally matriculating. My kid did not compile the data for other Ivies or other elite colleges but she suspects that it looks same also in those schools.</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>According to the Insidehighered article, the book is about more than preferences for developmental admits. </p>
<p>Some really should not be in college or graduate school. Overall, though, I think their impact on college life and on classes is pretty minimal. </p>
<p>I am more dismayed when alumni preferences lead to the endowment of coaches' positions or the repair of the Mem Hall spire rather than to the library or scholarships and fellowships because these have a real impact on college life as a whole including and not limited to, the admission of low-income students.</p>
<p>"30 years ago, what percentage of kids at top schools were from the "top 3%" (income? wealth?)? Impressionistically, it was at least 50%. What makes you think these schools have gotten less diverse economically?"</p>
<p>The higher education economist Gordon Winston at Williams has written on this at length. While the percentage of students receiving needbased aid has remained the same (or even gone up a little bit), the amount of income/assets necessary to support a full-pay matriculant at any of these schools has gone up substantially (and well above the rate of inflation). The result is that the top half of each of the classes comes from families who are wealthier than they would have been 25 years ago. Now mind you - I said 25 years - not 45 years - we are talking early 80s here, not early 60s.</p>
<p>The trick is to match "qualifications" to the full-paying customers.</p>
<p>Thanks to the financial aid from rich parents without whose help kids like mine would have no chance to attend the prep schools of colleges like HYP. </p>
<p>Kids like mine are beneficiary of their generosity in terms of receiving financial aid. My kid has stats and ECs but needed $$$$$$ in terms of aid.</p>
<p>But I would say one things these kids have good extracussricular activities.</p>
<p>Back before I became hooked on CC, I was obsessed with guidebooks by admissions experts such Hernandez, Cohen, and former Harvard adcom Chuck Hughes. All of them acknowledged the boost given to the offspring of the super rich and famous as well as to world-class achievers (in sports or the film business) who might not be stellar students academically. </p>
<p>The key to admissions decisions that came across loud and clear to me was: will he or she "add" to the campus community. The "will add?" question can be answered in a lot of ways. Intellectual gifts (high SAT/ACT and grades.) Leadership and energy (the type-A joiner and do-er). Athletic talent. Music talent. Debate talent. Diversity in the areas of ethnicity, geography, economics, religious background, political POV is taken into consideration. Is it unethical as Golden implies that HYP would determine that the son of powerful politician or the son of the head of a major Hollywood talent agency might "add" to the campus community? Those potential connections are what make these elite colleges so attractive since a similar level of academic excellence can be found at many other less sought after institutions. </p>
<p>I would guess that the children of movie stars and talent agency execs and record moguls also get admitted in greater proportion to the highly selective film-media schools of USC and NYU. (And probably UCLA as well). Connections matter. Potential donations matter. Is this "buying your way in" or simply the reality that the children of powerful people "will add" to the education of their classmates. </p>
<p>Does Golden really regard this as "corrupt" or is this hyperbole to sell books?</p>
<p>Midmo, you're in a bind here. Kid can't go to Harvard 'cause there are too many dumb rich preppies. Kid can't go to a large State school 'cause too many underprepared poor dumb kids go there who have to take their requirements at CC's in order to pass. Kid can't go to MIT since there's no merit aid. Moreover, kid is getting discouraged and doesn't see why he should work hard in HS given all of the above.</p>
<p>"I like to think in terms of incentives. When it gets to the point that there is no clear reward for putting together a stellar high school record (not just in-class work), then students like my son may stop working so hard. We all lose."</p>
<p>Actually, your son loses. The rest of us don't really care. The vast majority of kids at elite schools are there due to hard work, academic talent and ability, and evidence of a sustained and meaningful contribution to something outside of the classroom be it sports or music or debate or art or whatever. If your son doesn't want that out of fear that a development admit or two will negatively impact his experience, that's his choice. Won't make a damn bit of difference on society or the rest of us.</p>
<p>"I think the real problem is that people think the Ivy's are primarily about academics, whereas historically (and to some extent still), they are looking for leadership ability." Post # 66</p>
<p>Well, mathmom, now we know the source of the leadership problem in the U.S.! Personally, I think academic ability is the best judge of leadership potential. Really, does it show future leadership to let your parents buy you a spot in college?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really, does it show future leadership to let your parents buy you a spot in college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In a word, yes.</p>
<p>It's reasonably interesting to see so many people implicitly defending the current system by pointing out that catering to wealth and power is part of the point of these institutions to begin with. Yet places no less married to wealth and power than top American law schools have strict rules prohibiting people from participating in admissions evaluations in cases where there might be a conflict of interest -- for financial reasons, family reasons, whatever. And HLS seems to do okay, as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>One additional point: rich alumni of top colleges can already buy their children top notch education, preparation, extracurricular opportunities, etc. Do we really need yet another way for an established class structure to influence who gets into the next generation of leaders?</p>