<p>NB: The list is by percentage. Hence, a college might have larger number of Pell grantees, but a lower percentage of the total student population. Percentages matter, but so do absolute numbers.<br>
With this caveat, here are the colleges with less than 20% Pell grantees:</p>
<p>Barnard 17
Brown 11
CMU 12
Cornell 14
Duke 10
Emory 12
Harvard 12
JHU 13
MIT 13
Mt Holyoke 19
NYU 17
Northwestern 10
Pepperdine 19
Princeton 8
Rice 10
Santa Clara 12
Stanford 12
Tufts 9
U Chicago 11
Penn 11
USC 18
Wellesley 16
Yale 9
George Mason 18
UMD-College Park 16</p>
<p>Dstark:
These schools are not on the list.
The list includes only the "more racially and ethnically diverse" of the institutions of higher learning, divided between private and public. It is not clear to me whether schools with higher percentages of Pell grantees but less racial and ethnic diversity would have been included.<br>
I once met a young woman who told me that she liked Harvard for its ethnic diversity (Yes!). She came from a high school in Indiana where she was one of only two Asian-American students in a 2,000 student body.</p>
<p>Is the number given above, the percentage of students with pell grants?<br>
Here's something I found on the Rice website:
[quote]
On the list of schools with economic diversity, as represented by the percentage of undergraduates receiving federal Pell grants for low-income students, Rice is No. 20.
[/quote]
It doesn't say 20th out of x schools, or what list!!!</p>
<p>Too late to edit my original post. The List is from the NYT's Education Life (Nov. 5). The data come from the College Board and from the DOE (for Pell Grants). The list is by alphabetical order. I just went down it and culled out the colleges with less than 20% Pell grantees.</p>
<p>"The list includes only the "more racially and ethnically diverse" of the institutions of higher learning, divided between private and public."</p>
<p>It's a funny list, that excludes Williams and Trinity (few Pell Grantees), and Amherst and Smith (lots of Pell Grantees, though the latter is well over the 20% threshold.) List can be misleading, too - last time I looked, H.'s numbers included the extension school, which had a particularly high number. (Could be Williams is under the 2,000 threshold by a very small number, and Amherst is.)</p>
<p>Also interesting is to see that after 4-years of the no-loan policy, Princeton's percentage hasn't budged an inch, suggesting that the major beneficiaries of the policy are as I've written elsewhere.</p>
<p>which reports on the mismatch between college eligibility (being able to get an offer of admission from some college) and college readiness (being able to continue in a college-level program) in the current high school population. Something like half of the current high school students who are admitted to college are not, really, college-ready, and the six-year graduation rate figures reported on the Education Trust College Results Web site </p>
<p>Gordon Winston's studies indicate that prestige colleges could increase their share of low-income students by approximately 60% without ANY change to their current academic quality criteria whatsoever, without any adjustment based on effects of income on standardized scores or school quality. Were such adjustments to be made, based on the CollegeBoard's own known methodology, they could easily more than double them.</p>
<p>No great tragedy - you find these students are Berkeley, UMichigan, UCLA, Wisconsin, etc. getting terrific educations.</p>
<p>Roughly the bottom two quintiles of the population incomewise (below $40k or so) could be eligible for Pell Grants.</p>
<p>I think is true that many high school students are not prepared for college. That would have no impact on these schools whatsoever.</p>
<p>Six-year graduation rates are almost entirely a function of family situation/income/illness.</p>
<p>UVA does not appear on the list which is about the most, not the least diverse (that one was my idea). So it could be anywhere from 10 to 16%. But again, I do not know whether the main criterion for inclusion was racial/ethnic diversity or income (as measured by Pell grants). For some reason, UMich, UWisc do not appear on the list, either. Berkeley (32%) and UCLA (37%) do.</p>
<p>"Gordon Winston's studies indicate that prestige colleges could increase their share of low-income students by approximately 60% without ANY change to their current academic quality criteria whatsoever, without any adjustment based on effects of income on standardized scores or school quality. Were such adjustments to be made, based on the CollegeBoard's own known methodology, they could easily more than double them."</p>
<p>If I understand this correctly, the prestige colleges fail to accept the extra 60% low income student mainly because of the fault of the admissons office. So all the publicity statements from prestige colleges on new policy to increase low income students would not be as effective as reforming their admission office.</p>