Poor blacks and hispanics make up about 50 per cent of the people in poverty. Poor asians make up about 4 per cent of the people in poverty. I think ALL poor people need to be helped in achieving a college education. I just dont want us to lose sight of the fact of whom comprises the majority of group of poor people
@florida26 Can you link to where you got those numbers from?
http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf It is from the US Census data
Then that’s why colleges should give a bump-up to poor kids, so the blacks & hispancs who get the admissions bump-up are POOR, and not because they are just black or hispanic.
Thanks!
@GMTplus7 +1 to that comment!
@gmtplus7 About 40 per cent of black children live in poverty. So if one takes a special look at black applicants in a holistic fashion there is a strong chance that an admissions bump that you suggested would be correct. There is also a high percentage of Hispanic children living in poverty.
What I worry more about is the animosity towards people with so little by people with so much
@momtoaphysicsgeek,
"Am I the only one who sees no post by @GiuocoPiano and that the #1 post is actually by the OP replying to a post that isn’t there? I have had posts missing on other threads, but no one has actually responded to them. (I have only known that they were supposedly there b/c they have shown up in my notifications.) "
Moderators probably delete the post because it was very inflammatory. I usually don’t respond to inflammatory posts, but it got me a bit riled, so I did respond. Probably a bad move and now I will back away.
@florida26 and vice versa.
People with so little, like myself (born into it), should get a bump-up in admissions because of the challenges we face on a daily basis. It shouldn’t have to be a race game where a college would doubt one’s situation on the basis of being Caucasian, for instance.
As for the main topic: I believe it’s in most Asian cultures that working hard will yield success and, although that’s not a guarantee, it sure does increase the odds of becoming wealthier than most.
Why settle for a “strong chance” that POOR kids get a bump-up? Why not make it 100% chance that it only goes to the POOR kids?
My arithmetic tells me then that if 40% of black children live in poverty, then 60% of black children don’t live in poverty. If schools focused on giving POOR kids (regardless of race) a bump-up, then that 40% gets cut some deserved slack. Right now, it’s the 60% that is disproportionately benefiting from “diversity targets”, over their poorer 40% brethren.
The dilemma for colleges is that for their glossy recruiting brochure photos, race is obvious but poverty is not.
@GMTplus7 Where are your facts that the 60 per cent are benefitting? Also there are other factors that affect admission to college such as parents education, the quality of ones schools, being first generation or not etc The dilemma is that ALL factors point to the use of holistic admissions The problem is that it produces too diverse a student body than many people desire. You have stated in other posts that environmental factors are responsible for 100 per cent of the differences between applicants so I assume you are 100 per cent behind holistic admissions
I am 100 percent behind holistic admissions so long as the bar is set at the same height for all admissions dimensions independent of race.
Playing the cello shouldn’t “count more” for one race more than other. However, playing the cello should “count more” for a POOR kid.
Re: “The dirty little secret of higher education, however, is that selective universities are more interested in admitting fairly affluent students of all colors than in promoting social mobility.”
No surprise – admitting a lot of students from low income families may break the financial aid budget of schools which give good financial aid. It is likely that many of the highly selective schools choose their admissions criteria to manage their financial aid budgets, even though they are need-blind with respect to individual applicants. It looks like the common target is to have about half of the class come from the top 2-3% or so income families in order to keep a good supply of full-pay tuition dollars (though if you believe some of the claimed expenses of up to $90,000 per year per student, even they are getting a subsidized education).
<<<
so the blacks & hispancs who get the admissions bump-up are POOR, and not because they are just black or hispanic.
<<<<
That is fine, as long as it is true. However, there have been indications that many URMs that get a bump are not amongst the poor…they’re often the ones whose families are middle class or better. I have a cousin who very likely got an admissions boost to Stanford because of his URM status (1/4 URM)…yet his parents make well over $200k per year. The fact that every elite school that he applied to admitted him indicates that he was given a boost. He had very good stats, yes (but not tippy top), but we all know that elite admissions are a lottery and winning all of them does suggest a boost.
If schools want to give under-privileged URMs a boost, then I think that would be widely supported. Giving an affluent child who is only 1/4 URM a boost is probably not going to get the same support.
What criteria would they use?
If a college wants to keep the number of low income and first generation students low, it can:
- Be impressed with expensive extracurriculars or those associated with high SES levels.
- Not be too impressed with work experience.
- Require counselor and teacher recommendations. [1][2]
- Emphasize test scores. [3]
- Require SAT subject tests in addition to SAT reasoning or ACT. [1][3]
- Require CSS Profile including non-custodial parent information in addition to FAFSA. [1][4]
- Admit many students ED. [1][5]
[1] More things for the student and parents to keep track of in the college admissions timeline. First generation college students may not realize all of these things may be required and miss deadlines, and counselors in high schools with low college matriculation rates may not tell them in time.
[2] Counselors and teachers in high schools with low college matriculation rates may not be as practiced writing recommendations that will impress admissions readers.
[3] Test scores tend to have a strong correlation with family income.
[4] At least poster here has mention being suspicious of a financial aid form that one has to pay for. Requiring non-custodial parent information may effectively screen out many students whose divorced parents are uncooperative with each other.
[5] Low income students may not want to commit before comparing all financial aid and scholarship offers.
Thanks UCB.
To add to @ucbalumnus’s excellent post: A college that is need-blind can also restrict the number of low income/ 1st gen students by looking at the section on the common app that lists parents’ education and jobs.