Affirmative Action for the Rich

Parents Forum
81

<p>NMD, regarding your post #60:
That is not how I read the debate, actually. (See posts #1, 40, 42, 43, 50 at the very least.)</p>

<p>Everyone, I guess we all have our individual perspectives. While I agree with some that colleges are not going to publish data regarding which underqualified applicants were admitted because of $$ reasons, I do not agree with Ben that because he "says" that non-excellent admits are "more than marginal," they are. Again, this is speculation. Neither marite's S nor my D are going out of their way to avoid stupid students; yet both of them manage apparently to meet only quite brilliant ones. (And they are both at different schools, in very different majors.) So this would tend to say something about the law of averages, predictability, & trends -- although this also is not "data."</p>

<p>I actually think that both the upper level private U's and the publics do a better job of seeking, admitting, & welcoming students from a variety of economic backgrounds than most of the mid-level privates and some of the upper-level LAC's. That is because those latter institutions do not offer generous fin. aid (generally), other than loans. And the merit aid offered there is usually limited to high-scorers. Some of those high-scorers would be capable poor students, but many also would be those who gained an add'l 200 points on an SAT, due to private, paid-for coaching. I.m.o. the mid-level privates do not provide the opportunity for admission for a brilliant, economically disadvantaged student that either the publics or the "elite" privates do. JMO.</p>

82

<p>tarhunt,</p>

<p>If you work in higher ed, then you should know that federal support is divided into two parts, direct costs, and indirect costs. You should also know that the indirect cost rate, since it is applied as a percentage of direct, is highly negotiated, and under federal law cannot cover anything not directly related to the research.</p>

<p>I won't waste time debating with you the nuances of shared resources (as in shared between research and instruction) like libraries, except to say that most undergrads never touch the parts of the library that the researchers do, and in the sciences, most of those "library" expenditures are for journals and databases never touched by undergrads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]

No Ben, you just don't "get it". The fed money does not "allow" endowment support of undergrads. The fed money goes to research and overhead. And most of that overhead would not exist if not for the research. </p>

<p>Ben and Tarhunt, I can excuse both of your ignorance. After all, I've known many an academic who did not have even a basic understanding of university finance, even at their own institution. No great surprise, given the loose standards for financial reporting for higher ed. </p>

<p>I will add that I had the advantage of being part of the administration at a well know med school, with close contact and extensive discussion with both research admin (including the folks that negotiated overhead rates) and finance. But we tended to deal with the real figures, not the ones in the published, publicly available financial reports, which aggregated a bit too much.</p>

83

<p>Blossom, you're a little touchy! BTW, I'm not the least bit concerned about S, who will do just fine. I am concerned that the concept of meritocracy is taking a beating, and I do worry about long-term consequences for "all of us", even you.</p>

84

<p>Ben raises a very important question. It is clear that the benefits of society are stacked in favor of children with wealthy parents. As a society, how much of a skew in this direction are we going to allow?</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
Do we really need yet another way for an established class structure to influence who gets into the next generation of leaders?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I look at this issue from the point of view of someone who benefitted from a four-year scholarship in college as well as fellowships in grad school. Perhaps the sons and daughters of the funder of the scholarship program benefitted from being development admits (I have no idea--I have not looked into that family's history). But the program is still going strong after more than 40 years, and has funded the education of hundreds, perhaps thousands of students who could not otherwise have attended that college. </p>

<p>If the children of donor X are not admitted at HYP, they will be admitted somewhere else. And their position at the top of the social pyramid in the US will not depend on their having attended HYP. But the hundreds of students who funded their undergraduate education through the scholarship program I benefitted from were able to use their education to move up the social ladder.</p>

<p>Indeed, I recall reading about one Harvard alum making a very large donation because he had once been a scholarship student.</p>

86

<p>Who is "we", kimosabe? ;) (and do you really think it would make any difference where they went to school? And, you would do well to look at gender as well. The Ivies have lots of MALE Senators and Congresspeople. But take a look at the women in Congress and you'd be surprised how, 35 years and more after co-education at most of these schools, how poorly represented they are.)</p>

87

<p>

I disagree with this. In my experience, some of the best leaders have not been the most brilliant academically, but have that "certain something" that makes people want to follow them. Intangible, but clearly present. OTOH, while some brilliant people are also great leaders, many outstanding academics that I have known are rather self-absorbed in their own work and lack that special leadership quality.</p>

88

<p>newmassdad, you and I are having a classic accountant vs. economist debate. My point is that I don't care what column you put it in -- earmarked subsidies affect choice behavior quite similarly to the way unrestricted subsidies do. (This is heavily studied in institutional finance and the like -- I can look up some cites for you if you really don't believe me). I don't claim that research money goes to buy chalk and textbooks, but it does leave the university more money for those things. Not to mention that research money attracts star faculty, which is one of the elites' main selling points.</p>

<p>The simple point is that you shouldn't be talking about what column the expenditures go into. That is a matter of notation. What matters is how research funds affect overall expenditures and how much better off they make the university overall.</p>

<p>The big failing of the accountant viewpoint is that it assumes labels and columns are important, whereas economists point out that columns don't really matter -- just the effect of subsidies on choice behavior and long run outcomes.</p>

89

<p>lkf725: I didn't say that all brilliant scholars are good leaders; that is obviously not the case. I do say that the best leaders are those who try to understand the world and have something to contribute. Maybe "academic ability" is being too narrowly defined here. However we define it, saying it is OK for Ivies to admit so-so legacies because, after all, the schools are just looking for leaders is off the mark, in my opinion.</p>

90

<p>Marite:</p>

<p>I have read only some of Winston's work, but your summary of his argument leaves an important gap, and it was the gap into which my question fell. Yes, college costs are higher in real terms than they were 25 years ago. Yes, it takes greater resources relative to average (income/wealth) to pay that. Yes, the percentage of families paying full fare has remained constant. But the wealth of the wealthiest families has also increased enormously relative to average over the past 25 years. So it doesn't follow at all that the families paying full cost today come from a higher percentile of total families (by income or wealth) than they did 25 years ago, or even that the families paying full cost today are "richer" than they were then (although they probably are in constant dollars and in relation to the average).</p>

<p>And the other piece of the economic-diversity puzzle is where do the rest of the students come from? Again, this is only impressionistic, but my sense is that a greater percentage of students comes from outside the top quintile today than 25 years ago.</p>

91

<p>Casting my vote:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Yes it is too bad that America is not a complete meritocracy. It is too bad it is racist, too bad it has a class hierarchy, too bad it is sexist. However, it is still better than most places in the world.</p></li>
<li><p>It is too bad that economic realities mean that the most selective schools offering a highly desirable education are not available to all who have reached the appropriate level of academic, athletic, creative or leadership achievement and are available to other kids who can pay/donate.</p></li>
<li><p>However, Ivies are no longer the only option. Almost any kid who is a high school high achiever can get accepted and get a good education funded either altogether or partially. Or so I have assumed from other threads here at cc. The true inequities of the wealthy are felt much more strongly in pre-school and the primary grades, meaning that those kids with potential won't even get to achieve in high school.</p></li>
<li><p>Very few of the developmental admits at top institutions these days seem, from anecdotal evidence including mine, to be weighing down the academic merit of the universities they attend.</p></li>
<li><p>Certainly in 1974 Princeton was not full of only brilliant kids. I remember being surprised that I wasn't the dumbest person there. Lots and lots of dumb prep school kids in those days. I am sure that that average level of academic achievement at Princeton now is way higher than in my days.</p></li>
<li><p>I also know that perhaps the most successful people in our class were a) a football player who was the first person in his middle-class Italian family to attend college and became an entrepreneur b) an absolute genius in bio-mechanical everything who is now a full professor and winner of a McArthur award at some other Ivy League institution:). So, the mix was there then and most likely remains....</p></li>
</ol>

92

<p>newmassdad:</p>

<p>I'm sure your're aware, from your dig at academics like me, that the disrespect goes both ways. From conversations I've had, it is clear to me that many of my faculty colleagues assume that the reason our administrative routines are so poorly conceived and executed is because the people in administrative jobs hadn't the personal resources to make it in either business or academe.</p>

<p>Not that I'm one of those people ;-).</p>

<p>As you know, there is a strong body of thought that research is actually a money loser, even if funded by the federal government. I can probably find some links in case you need proof of that.</p>

<p>As I interpret Ben's point, for reasons of mission, prestige, and the like, universities would fund a substantial amount of research even without government/industry grants. The money to do that would have to come from other revenue streams, such as, say, tuition. Federal dollars offset some of the costs of research, thereby reducing pressure on those other revenue streams.</p>

<p>Now, if it were true that universities would do no research in the absence of outside grants, I would agree with you. I think that a very unlikely assumption.</p>

93

<p>"And the other piece of the economic-diversity puzzle is where do the rest of the students come from? Again, this is only impressionistic, but my sense is that a greater percentage of students comes from outside the top quintile today than 25 years ago."</p>

<p>Tom Mortenson's work indicates that (at least as late as 2004) the percentage of Pell Grant recipients at these institutions is lower than it was 12 years earlier, and in many cases is in the single digits. So not only has the the percentage of those in the top 3% risen, but the percentage of those in the bottom two quintiles is static or has fallen.</p>

<p>It is very, very true that the wealth of the wealthiest (top 3%) of families has increased enormously in the past 25 years. That's exactly the point. Relative to the rest of the student population, the "median" student is substantially wealthier than s/he would have been 25 years ago. I'm not talking about the "developmental admits" - just the median student. </p>

<p>As to whether it should be that way? Well, if I were running one of these institutions, I don't think I'd do it any differently. Winston's work demonstrates that there are plenty (read: in the tens of thousands) of wholly qualified high school graduates from poorer families who are not attending these schools, but so what? It's not like they are suffering as a result of not going there, though they may suffer greatly from cutbacks at the public colleges and universities.</p>

<p>"And the other piece of the economic-diversity puzzle is where do the rest of the students come from? Again, this is only impressionistic, but my sense is that a greater percentage of students comes from outside the top quintile today than 25 years ago."</p>

<p>Best data I know of comes from Amherst, which has a commitment to "economic diversity". 55% get no need-based aid whatsoever (meaning they come from the top 3%). 17% are on Pell Grants (meaning bottom two quintiles), leaving 28% for everyone else, a substantial portion of whom are from families in the top quintile ($90k - $160k) and who receive financial assistance. In other words, statistically, there is almost no one from the broad middle (and, if I had to bet, the few someones are mostly athletes.)</p>

<p>"Again, this is only impressionistic, but my sense is that a greater percentage of students comes from outside the top quintile today than 25 years ago."</p>

<p>So if the Amherst data is indicative (and I think it is - and the data I have seen from Princeton is similar), roughly 70% from the top quintilie, with about 50%, give or take, from the top 3%. If there have been changes, they've been wholly at the margins.</p>

<p>Other than the fact that the top 50% are richer, things don't really look much different at my alma mater (Williams) than they did 40 years ago, but less diverse than 25 years ago.</p>

94

<p>Midmo said: Personally, I think academic ability is the best judge of leadership potential.</p>

<p>I totally disagree with this. Academic ability – or how well you do in school – is not at all a good determinant for how well a person might lead a company or a nation or a school board committee. Common sense, people skills, creativity, willingness to take risks – these are some of the traits that are not measured by classroom grades or SAT scores but determine leadership success. And “who you know” is another factor. Remember FOB? </p>

<p>Midmo also said: My son and a few of his friends with impressive records really don't want to go to a school just because naive people think it must be good because New Englanders say so.</p>

<p>Your son and his friends are in the minority. Applications at these schools continue to skyrocket. One reason there are thousands of schools in this country is so we can serve the different needs of different students. Sounds like your son and his friends need to go someplace other than Ivy. They’ve researched it and come to the conclusion those schools aren’t good for them. Kudos. I wish more kids did that instead of looking at the rankings and sending aps to the top-ranked schools based on prestige factors alone.</p>

<p>Peege: The spot they take from a more qualified applicant, job seeker, petitioner, etc. erodes hope in our society.</p>

<p>How do you know the spot they took wouldn’t have gone to the football player with 500 SATs or the oboist from North Dakota ranked 50/100?</p>

<p>Golden’s been touting this horn since his original WSJ series. And actually, I think colleges are listening to his message. I do think legacy acceptances dropped in response to the pressure of increased numbers of applications from academic superstars. </p>

<p>I think admissions would be different in a perfect world, but this world sure ain’t perfect or fair. I am liberal when it comes to politics and tend to support government regulation, but I wouldn’t be too pleased if politicians react to Golden’s book by introducing legislation that would force colleges to stop admitting students based on alumni, development, athletic and other similar factors. </p>

<p>Lots of things erode hope in our society. Rotten housing, job discrimination, poor legal representation, etc. I think those are much more significant than a rejection from Harvard that, for all the student knows, could have been because of a poor teacher recommendation or a pretentious, boring essay.</p>

95

<p>Daniel Golden has written about college admissions and other education issues for the Wall Street Journal for several years. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for his series of articles about college admissions.</p>

<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/golden2.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/golden2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Excerpts from one of those:

[quote]
Many Colleges Bend Rules
To Admit Rich Applicants
............
Yet in recent years, Duke says it has relaxed these standards to admit 100 to 125 students annually as a result of family wealth or connections, up from about 20 a decade ago. These students aren't alumni children and were tentatively rejected, or wait-listed, in the regular admissions review. More than half of them enroll, constituting an estimated 3% to 5% of Duke's student body of 6,200. ...................</p>

<p>Harold Wingood, who was senior associate director of admissions under Dr. Brodie, recalls that 30 to 40 students per year were upgraded from "rejected" to "wait-list," or from "wait-list" to "admit" due to their family ties. "We'd take students in some cases with SAT scores 100 points below the mean, or just outside the top 15% of their class," says Mr. Wingood, now dean of admissions at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "They weren't slugs, but they weren't strong enough to get in on their own."</p>

<p>The numbers have increased under Ms. Keohane, Duke's current president. Duke says it admitted about 125 nonalumni children in 1998, and again in 1999, who had been tentatively rejected or wait-listed prior to considering family connections. It accepted 99 such students in 2000. Similar data aren't available for 2001 or 2002, the school says.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Although it's no surprise to me that colleges admit students for "developmental" purposes, the details provided are still morbidly fascinating. I assume Golden's book illuminates further.</p>

<p>Here are links to the other articles that won Golden the Pulitzer:</p>

<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PulitzerDG04052004.htm?mod=home_journal_links%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PulitzerDG04052004.htm?mod=home_journal_links&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

96

<p>Tarhunt,</p>

<p>Interesting comment about how the academy views administrators. FWIW, the folks I knew in admin were all pretty talented, and chose the lesser pay of academe for lifestyle reasons: more time off, less stress, better benefits etc. But I only have the perspective of two major U's!</p>

<p>And yet, we all dearly loved the faculty - at least most of them! I often thought the stars could make many times more if they were in industry, and could tolerate the BS that goes on in industry.</p>

<p>Regarding research, the historical record says that not much research would occur absent federal funding, as not much occurred until federal funding came on the scene. One only need look at what research was done pre-WWII to see what I mean. Essentially, the research done then was of a, shall we say, low cost nature, as very little money was available. And, of the little money that was available, most of it came from outside resources, or the family funds of the academic - a surprising (to me) number of them came from wealthy families.</p>

<p>So, yes, I do think higher ed, especially research universities, would be very different places without federal funding. </p>

<p>BTW, knowing the numbers, I also don't buy the argument that unis lose money on research. A good line for fundraising, and good for keeping folks in line financially, but just not true.</p>

97

<p>I think pre-WWII is too different a period to look at.</p>

<p>In any case, the fact remains that much of the prestige of top American universities, as well as their ability to attract and retain star faculty is due to their mostly federal research money. It follows that sarap's point about how they are "private businesses" that are free to do their own thing is off the mark, which was what started the discussion in the first place.</p>

98

<p>newmassdad:</p>

<p>You must not be invited to many faculty parties!!! I wish I weren't.</p>

<p>I've got two research universities and two LACs under my own belt, so I've seen a few things, I suppose. Academe is extremely hierarchical and, though we "professors" like to talk a good collegiality, we seldom practice it in our less public conversations.</p>

<p>Certain fields look down on pretty much every other discipline. Some of the social sciences are held in extremely low regard. One discipline (I'll let you guess which) is widely despised for the largely unfounded hubris of its practitioners.</p>

<p>Working with adminstration at three of the four places I've been has been like swimming through a sewer with my mouth open. In most cases, I can't even get an accurate budget from more than three to four months ago, which is not in the least useful. Faculty rarely have good things to say about administrators, though I understand that it is a difficult job.</p>

<p>As for research, we'll just have to disagree since no evidence on what colleges would spend minus outside dollars is available. So much prestige depends on research results these days that I feel strongly that universities would find a way to spend what they could, albeit less than total expenditures with outside dollars.</p>

<p>As for schools losing money on research, I'm glad to hear you disagree. I don't have the numbers to make an argument one way or the other, but it has often occurred to me that, just because I couldn't apply certain expenses to a grant because they occurred in a gov't funded building does not mean that research is an overall money loser. After all, the building is there, isn't it?</p>

99

<p><em>laughs</em> re the remark about the particular social science.</p>

<p>Also perhaps "widely despised" because its average salaries are by far the highest in pure academe (outside of med schools and law schools).</p>

100

<p>Ben, Tarhunt,</p>

<p>I agree that research is an important component of prestige at many unis, but one might note several with high prestige that don't do much. Hint: look at the "lesser" ivies.</p>

<p>Whether pre-WWII is too far back is a subjective decision, but it is the only real data point we have. And, it is interesting to note that a prestige heirarchy existed in those days, and the heirarchy is remarkably like the one now.</p>

<p>If, for whatever reason, the feds got out of the research funding business tomorrow, after a horrible adjustment period, I bet you'd see a completely different landscape in higher ed. There's way too many demands on institutional funds, and way too many restrictions on endowment funds, for much, if any, of them to substitute for federal funding.</p>

<p>Instead, you would see a landscape much like it was, where most support came from foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie.</p>