<p>Well, since Parchment predicts Stanford vs Berkeley to be 86/14, you know their crystal ball lacks polish. By a solid margin. Looks like that site is just as accurate as CC’s WAMC.</p>
<p>Rutgers gives significant merit aid to (at least) NJ kids. Most Harvard/Princeton admit probabaly get full ride; thus making it an attractive choice for high EFC students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>type [ quote ] before the text and [ /quote ] after. Remove the 4 spaces shown before and after the words inside each pair of brackets.</p>
<p>^^You are awesome. Thank you!</p>
<p>Figures. I make a post and everyone leaves. ;-(</p>
<p>^^ I thought this question scared everyone away:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People say that test scores are correlated with family income. Since most Ives applicants have scores in that range, we’d like to see if the correlation statement applies here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think that logically there must be a non-trivial correlation. Decades ago, Mensa used to accept SAT and ACT scores as IQ-test equivalents for admission. In the meantime an entire industry has grown up around the idea of “gaming” the test to get a better score than one might do naturally without advanced preparation. To the extent that higher family incomes can pay for more and better test prep classes and more retakes of the test, the rich have an advantage. The SAT allowing superscoring also gives an advantage to the repeat test-taker willing to use the brute-force approach.</p>
<p>However, I think the advantage for the wealthy is much greater in the area of extracurriculars and community service projects. Elite schools have teachers who nurture their students into and through such opportunities, often beginning in middle school, simply because the parents demand it. In poorer schools such focus on building an impressive portfolio of accomplishments is not even on the teachers’ radar, they focus on getting more of their kids to actually graduate. The best and brightest in these high schools, when beginning college selection, often discover the race is over and they lost, before they even knew they were in one – the old surprised “What? You mean high test scores and being at the top of your class aren’t enough?”</p>
<p>^Not to mention that just being in a household that is struggling economically can require more time doing non-educational things.</p>
<p>I know students from poorer families who don’t have after-school transportation and have to rely on others for rides if they want to participate in a sport, band, or other club. Sometimes they have to hang around for a while on the sidewalk or walk several miles to get home or to the library. They can’t just rush home to their desk and start on homework or on another activity. Most of these students have to choose between a more rigorous course load and doing even one extracurricular activity.</p>
<p>Second, many low-income students have to care for their younger siblings because their parent(s) are either absent, working long hours and/or more than one job, or are disabled. Some have to help their younger siblings with homework, cook and serve supper, and get the children to bed. All of us parents know how much time that takes.</p>
<p>Finally, there is computer access. For students with no computer access at home, homework is significantly harder. School library computers are only available until the library closes, and then there might be a problem with getting home after the buses leave. The nearest public library may be far enough to require that ever-elusive transportation. Moreover, that library eventually closes as well, and when it is open there is frequently a wait for a computer. In addition, it’s a lot harder to get homework done while sitting in a public place, next to someone glancing at your screen, with a time limit of, say, 45 minutes.</p>
<p>Low-income students sometimes manage, somehow, to overcome these problems and excel. However, it is SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult for them to do so. Our own children know that if they complain about life being unfair to them, we will talk to them about how privileged they are compared to most people, and how because of this, they must work especially hard to give back and to help other people.</p>
<p>All students whose families have provided them with computer access, transportation, and extracurricular activities, especially those whose parents are well-off enough to fund travel and SAT/ACT prep, need to realize that “There but for the grace of God [nature, luck, whatever] go I” and learn to be humble. They may not be the cream of the crop, just the most fortunate ones.</p>
<p>One thing about going to these schools is the people you meet. Most of us have heard about the groups of people at Harvard / Yale that “if” you get in, you’re set for life. The connections is what gives you the chances, but it’s still up to you to use them.</p>
<p>^^One thing about going to ANY school is the people you meet. If you actually heard believe that rubbing elbows with people at Harvard or Yale can leave you “set for life,” I have a bridge to sell you…The people are not “better” there. And they are certainly not more altruistic than students anywhere else. They are there to succeed (for THEMSELVES) and, in many cases, make a lot of money when they graduate–and they often do this through intense competition against their peers for high-paying consulting or finance jobs. I do agree that using whatever connections or chances one has is the individual’s responsibility. But this can be done at an average state school or lesser-known LAC or anywhere else.</p>
<p>Just skimming through the last few pages, I see people keep citing the correlation between family income and test scores without mentioning the indirect nature of the relationship. While a small part of it may be due to money spent on test prep, most of this correlation can be attributed to the much stronger relationship between the level parental education and SAT scores (and general student achievement). Of course, there is a very direct relationship between level of education and income.</p>
<p>Regionally, those states with a higher percentage of the population with advanced degrees, like Massachusetts, will produce more high-achieving students. The PSAT cutoffs range from the low 200s to around 223 for NMSFs precisely because they want to have the same proportion from every state based on its population so they have to adjust the cutoff to get the right absolute number for each. I’m not sure if some states have fewer kids taking the PSATs which would account for some of the disparity but I do think the cutoffs can serve as something of yardstick to measure student achievement by state. </p>
<p>Sorry if I’m backtracking a bit here, I just came upon this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One thing about going to college, period, is that it is supposed to make you a critical thinker capable of independent thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And top schools are eager to recruit those who are first in the family to attend college, given that the rest of the credentials are in the ballpark. It’s a daunting task to overcome the tide in a family where so many things take precedence over maximizing one’s education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this a New York City / East Coast thing? I’ve read plenty of stories about moms being worried that if they don’t get their kids into the right preschool that their kid’s chance of getting into the Ivies is shot forever. College is the end goal, not just a way station to success?</p>
<p>As Pizzagirl will attest to, here in the Midwest it’s more a matter of “hey, the elite schools are great, but the state flagship is just fine, too.”</p>
<p>^Lorem – I think that concern must be pretty much limited to the Northeast, within a few hundred miles of Harvard and Yale. A brilliant student from Massachusetts could stay very close to home by going to either school. A brilliant student from Georgia, Nebraska, or Oregon would have to go a long distance. Most students, even the top ones, don’t choose to look at schools so far from home.</p>
<p>Moreover, in states where the flagship and/or overall university system are well respected (NC, Virginia, Michigan, and California are good examples), students know that they can get a very high quality education close to home, and often without going into massive debt to do so.</p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>It’s a brand that carries certain niceties but they won’t make or break the college expereince.</p>
<p>i.e. Does driving a Mercedes Benz improve your life verses driving a Honda?
or Does buying a white t shirt from Nieman Marcus (aka Needless markup) improve your life verses buying a white t shirt from Target? </p>
<p>Their might be inherent perks to Ivy League, Mercedes, & Nieman Marcus but they will not determine your intelligence, wisdom, moral characterer, happiness, friends, and employment. While they might all enhance the experience , you know it is never a straight, guaranteed path to success.</p>
<p>Overcoming obstacles is often your launch pad to success if you desire it & are motivated. There are no golden tickets.</p>
<p>Actually WEARING a shirt from Neiman Marcus is a nice life improvement over a Target one. There is something about quality that can justify a higher price, including a better ROI.</p>
<p>From what I’ve heard from others, NOBODY gives a damn on your degree. All they care is if you have one or not or whether the school is accredited. That’s all they care in the South. They know that Ivies graduate is as smart from ones from LSU. They do not discriminate based on what school you graduate from.</p>
<p>In wherever I live in, the superintendent of education did not graduate from schools like Ivies. He graduated from UNO. It is a good school, but not the good others think.</p>
<p>PowerY – In the South, as in any part of the country, employers do care very much about the quality of the school and whether the school is accredited. They want to hire employees who graduated from colleges where they received strong educations that prepared them for their jobs. The point is that most employees are confident that there are many colleges that fit that description.</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to sit on the United States Supreme Court one day, or anyone who wants to work on Wall Street on for a company that recruits almost exclusively at Ivy schools would be well-advised to try to get in one of those colleges. The vast majority of students, however, don’t have the desire to sit on the Court or work in Manhattan.</p>
<p>Employers aren’t saying that Ivy league schools are doing a better job of educating their students…rather they use them as a screening device, surmising that the applicant had to have excellent credentials to be admitted to an Ivy league school in the first place!</p>