<p>Not only are we in the magic 7% as recounted above, but D is considered a diversity student due to income and geographic location. For Accepted Students' Weekend, Amherst paid for her to fly up, picked her up at the airport, housed and fed her, and returned her to the airport, all on their dime. If middle class kids don't apply, it is perhaps because they too, have heard that Amherst's FA for middle class is bad, and they just don't want to bother, because they think they won't get enough money. It is sad. But I work with my HS kids and tell them that they should apply to their reach schools (along with safeties, etc.), be realistic, then sit down with their parents once all the FA offers come in. You don't know if you don't apply 0- and what applies to one may not apply to you in terms of FA, because no one knows everything about other peoples' finances.</p>
<p>Very cool, ejr1. That's a message that needs to get out more.</p>
<p>Amherst's stats on what economic category their students come from pretty much reflect what many middle class families are saying on the discussion boards here. They are being bumped out of the expensive private schools that offer financial aid only. Since that category of families comprise the bulk of this country, they should not be represented so sparsely. The reality is that many of these families feel that they cannot afford the $50K a year that a school like Amherest costs and are looking at other venues such as state schools or lower sticker prices aided with some merit sweetners or schools that can offer nice merit money. There does come a point where it simply is not a wise use of money for a family to pay that private college tab, </p>
<p>Cpt-- no one in the group Mini describes, 42-92K, is being asked to pay 50K, especially at a school like Amherst, which is need blind, meets full need. In fact, the vast majority of the quintine above them would also get significant aid; we did not pay anything close to 50K at a school with similar policies.</p>
<p>Somehow, I don't find colleges' efforts to include more middle class families all that noteworthy. And figures that show what percent of the students qualify for need-based aid are also uninteresting. We have an income that puts us in the top 5% of families in the US, and yet we are qualifying for aid this year. So who cares about that 50% or 60% "needy students" figure? it DOES NOT mean there are many poor kids there.</p>
<p>Poor kids (usually black or Hispanic urban, or white very rural) come from families making A LOT less than $40K a year. Most of them do not attend HS that in any way shape or form prepare them for entrance into elite private colleges. Amherst shows 15% black and Hispanic. Perhaps half of those are low income, but I'd bet it's even less than that.</p>
<p>I don't know...I'm just so sick of discussions that are so based on our very white, middle-class perception of the world. Walk on any LAC campus and then walk through a community college. Get real. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, most colleges are not in positions to change educational and economic trends in this country, but it doesn't help that most people have their heads in the sand. The ugly reality is that most of this diversity stuff is window dressing.</p>
<p>Weenie, your point is very well taken. All I have to do is look out my office door, or at the students in my classroom, to see how different most of the world is from Amherst et al (including the schools my own kids attend.) And when I work with them on their FAFSAs, or read their essays about life experiences, all i can do is be amazed that they somehow get to college at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know...I'm just so sick of discussions that are so based on our very white, middle-class perception of the world. Walk on any LAC campus and then walk through a community college. Get real.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>On the other hand, that is a bit of a strawman argument. The reasonable target for Amherst is not the socio-economic diversity of a community college. After all, the academic qualifications (SATs, class rank, etc.) between the two types of schools are very different and those things are inextricably correlated with income.</p>
<p>So, the question is not whether Amherst has failed because its student body doesn't look that that of the local 2-year college. Instead, you have to look at where Amherst is today compared to where it was 50 years ago.</p>
<p>Mini's point about income percentiles is statistically valid (but probably more because of two income families and national income distributions than a failure on Amherst's part). However, if you look at a graph of the percentage of white US citizens at Amherst over the last three decades, I think you would be hard pressed to say that the school hasn't made a serious diversity effort.</p>
<p>In the fall of 1976, Amherst's student body was 14.2% non-white or international (more than half of that being high-risk African American students who really struggled to adjust and were quite unhappy at elite colleges). In the fall of 2006, it was 36.7% non-white or international.</p>
<p>For us to complain that the minority students are too wealthy and thus "shouldn't count" strikes me as a little disingenuous. Isn't the whole point of the exercise to improve the opportunity for prosperity over time? Clearly, the efforts to do so (of which the aggressive efforts of schools like Amherst play a small part) are changing the landscape. </p>
<p>Not as apparent in this data is the fact that today's minority students at Amherst are infinitely better prepared to succeed in that academic environment, as evidenced by very high graduation rates and much less alienation that they felt in the early years. The students being admitted in 1976 were significantly more "at risk" for a variety of reasons, including their perceived tokenism. IMO, what we are starting to see is second-generation elite college minority admissions. Rather than complain about that, I view it as a positive. I'm glad that it is now perfectly routine for black, Latino, and Asian American students to apply to Amherst and be successful. That was NOT the case 30 years ago.</p>
<p>The point of the NPR piece was class differences. I don't think there is much class difference between a white and AA multi-millionaire and it does little for class diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Income of $40k is hardly indigent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe $40K doesn't signal indigence in Puget Sound, but in my city you'd be hard pressed to just pay the rent with that.</p>
<p>I heard the NPR piece. It was not focused on diversity as far as ethnic background, but on class differences. Part of the story focused on one middle-class (presumably white) student who had college educated parents, but was not from a "privileged" background. He talked about how when he arrived at Amherst, students he met talked about wanting to work for "Goldman Sachs" and he asked, "What's that? A shoe store?" because he had never heard of it before and didn't even know what a "banker" was. Then the reporter talked about how internships and jobs at places like Goldman Sachs often come through family connections. </p>
<p>Based on personal experience (my son), the above is half true and half hype. He also did not know what a "banker" did before he went to college (I guess that I should be embarrassed to admit that neither I nor my husband did either, although we are both quite well educated in professional jobs). He became interested in a career in investment banking (based on what he heard and learned at school) and went through the summer internship interview process, and now has graduated and has a permanent job in the field. From everything I could see, the process of obtaining internships was open equally to all, through the recruiting process at his school's Career Center. Perhaps some people do get their internships/jobs in another way, through connections, but definitely not the majority who went on from his school to work at many different firms and also not at all for those working with him at his firm. (Many of his fellow first year employees happen to be immigrants or children of recent immigrants).</p>
<p>Interesteddad - I see your point about Amherst making progress. Really I do. And I understand how hard it is for these institutions to make these changes, and like I stated, it is really beyond their realm. And no, I don't expect them to look like community colleges.</p>
<p>My point is simply that we ignore this young "underclass" at our own great peril. It's my fault as much as anyone's, but this "underclass" is our country's future. They are our kids' peer group. How we address these huge economic and educational discrepancies will make or break our future as a country. I really believe that! Feeling good about a 2% rise in minority attendance at a $45K+/year school really isn't important in the overall scheme of things. That's all. Just a perspective.</p>
<p>Excellent point, barrons. Just because kids are black does not mean they are poor or underprivileged.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because kids are black does not mean they are poor or underprivileged.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly what it meant 50 years ago.</p>
<p>50 years ago, simply being black meant that you could not attend most elite colleges and many state universities. </p>
<p>Have we forgotten George Wallace and the University of Alabama?</p>
<p>Heck, being black 50 years ago meant that you couldn't even vote in Alabama, between poll taxes, bogus literacy tests, and the fear of getting your head stoved in.</p>
<p>The explosion in higher education came largely on the heels of GI-programs in housing and education following WWII. Just for kicks, do a little research and look at the percentage of GI home loans that went to black people in, for example, Mississippi.</p>
<p>IMO, we need to look at these issues in context. To say that Amherst is somehow failing because its minority students are reasonably affluent misses the big picture. Try to see the whole elephant.</p>
<p>Interestdad, I see the elephant, but it is an open secret in admissions circles that at the elite colleges, "Black" means a child of Jamaicans, Ugandans, Kenyans, etc. Not that they're not black racially.... but that they're not "African American" in the sense that is used sociologically and historically to describe the descendants of black slaves brought here unwillingly and with their family structures destroyed.</p>
<p>The children of recent black immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa, despite their skin color, have the social markers of children of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, parts of Asia (not all), etc. So-- increasing the number of black faces on campus doesn't neccessarily indicate any increase in the number of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.</p>
<p>I don't have an axe to grind..... but voting in Alabama 50 years ago doesn't relate to the life's experience of a kid whose parents are professionals and grew up without the stigma of a George Wallace-impacted childhood.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't have an axe to grind..... but voting in Alabama 50 years ago doesn't relate to the life's experience of a kid whose parents are professionals and grew up without the stigma of a George Wallace-impacted childhood.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And, one of the reasons for that change is that elite colleges have worked very hard for the last 40 years to enroll minority students, thus making it less surprising to see minority kids grow up with successful professional parents.</p>
<p>For example, having a black candidate making a serious Presidential run has impact far beyond any numbers. Those images are now a reality, in part, because elite colleges made an affirmative effort to open their doors to non-white students.</p>
<p>There are many colleges that haven't made that effort. That's why I think it's a little unfair to criticize Amherst for its efforts, imperfect as those efforts may be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is an open secret in admissions circles that at the elite colleges, "Black" means a child of Jamaicans, Ugandans, Kenyans, etc. Not that they're not black racially.... but that they're not "African American" in the sense that is used sociologically and historically to describe the descendants of black slaves brought here unwillingly and with their family structures destroyed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good. That suggests that recent immigrants from Africa finding more opportunity in the United States than those who made the trip in the hold of a cargo ship 200 years ago.</p>
<p>Indigent: adjective 1. lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty; needy; poor; impoverished. </p>
<p>So, where in this country is it necessary to pay $3,000+ per month in rent? I know that one can choose to pay that much. But, even in Los Angeles, HUD estimates that in 2006 the Fair Market Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment, defined as the rent at the 40th percentile in the distribution of market rents, was $1,189 per month. So a family making $40,000 per year would not be "hard pressed to just pay the rent."</p>
<p>garland-</p>
<p>I don't know about other people, but we are in the lower end of the $42-90K range you cited, and our CSS EFC is $46K. No need aid for us. </p>
<p>We saved $100K for this kid's education, and have a paid-off house, but full pay at $42,000 is not going to happen here, even if he could get in.</p>
<p>jaybee -- your EFC is based on the fact that you have high assets. If you saved $100K for the kid's education, in an account in his name, then the college financial aid system just happens to expect you to actually spend that money on the very thing you saved it for. So maybe your EFC really $26K + $20K of that $100K account for your kid?</p>
<p>I agree. CSS doesn't come up with that kind of EFC on a close to 40's income and only 100k in parent assets. I'm guessing that one, your paid off house is worth a ton, and/or two, like calmom said, the 100K was in the kids name.</p>
<p>With a close to 100k income (last year) and more assets than that, we got a 38K EFC. This year, with a closer to 70K income, and less assets than last year (but still more than what you listed), I know EFC will go down. So there is missing information in your post.</p>
<p>dadx3, do you mean mom, dad, and the five kids should expect to live in a two-bedroom apartment? I realize that does happen, in LA and elsewhere, but certainly that defines indigence.</p>