<p>
[quote]
Top universities such as many in the Ivy League will explain the Pell Grant statistics in terms of the limited academic qualifications of most low-income students. Yet one asks, Why is the percentage of low-income students enrolled at so many Ivy League colleges one half the rate of low-income students at highly selective schools such as Amherst, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Wellesley?
[/quote]
LAC's
University.. Undergraduate.. Pell Grant.. Percentage
............... Enrollment........ Recipients.. Receiving Pell Grants
Smith College... 2647............... 716........... 27.0%
Mount Holyoke 2191............... 448............ 20.4%
Barnard College 2297............... 419............ 18.2%
Wellesley ....... 2300............... 395............ 17.2%
Oberlin College 2848.............. 470............. 16.5%
Amherst College 1618............. 252.............15.6%</p>
<p>"Top universities such as many in the Ivy League will explain the Pell Grant statistics in terms of the limited academic qualifications of most low-income students. Yet one asks, Why is the percentage of low-income students enrolled at so many Ivy League colleges one half the rate of low-income students at highly selective schools such as Amherst, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Wellesley? </p>
<p>LOL, the answer is given ALMOSt verbatim in the first part of the statement: </p>
<p>The Ivy League will explain the Pell Grant statistics in terms of the MORE limited academic qualifications of most low-income students. </p>
<p>The admission statistics and selectivity of most of the schools listed (Smith College, Mount Holyoke, Barnard College, Wellesley, Oberlin College) are hardly comparable to the Ivy League schools'. Admissions rates of above 50%, ED admission rates of 60 or 80%, SAT scores hundreds of point lower, and top ten percent percentages lower by double digits are the norms at the schools commended for their Pell students. The schools have different student bodies and the differences stem from admission's performance. The students from the second group are not interchangeable with the Ivies, except for the so-called lower Ivies and only to a small extent. The Pell numbers reflect the different marketing strategies of the schools and the different target markets. The second group fills its class with students who were not accepted at Ivies. </p>
<p>Amherst College, on the other hand, is slightly different and does not belong in the listed group as its admission statistics are clearly superior. When compared to LACs with comparable selectivity, the Pell numbers are very similar.</p>
<p>The political answer is that poor students do not recieve (or as much) preference as other preferred groups.</p>
<p>It's all beyond me how "diversity" makes me a better student (Cornell seems the most zealous in its adherence to multiculturalism of the Ivies). And where did these schools "commit" to educating the poor?</p>
<p>What is 'small?' And (I am probably wrong) but does that make sense to say "except for these two, then the other 6 plus the excepted 2 have ...." Shouldn't it be "Except for Cornell and Columbia, the Ivy League colleges..." And "Top universities such as many in the Ivy League" sounds terribly clunky, if not syntactically wrong.</p>
<p>"Over the past 60 years America's Ivy League universities have enjoyed a reputation for a strong commitment to admitting students from all racial, social, and income classes." I guess Jews don't count as a social class. The article obliquely implies that black=poor, so if you have policies that prefer blacks, then you are admitting the poor too, but then later contradicts that notion with a quote.</p>
<p>Ivy average: 12.5%
Liberal Arts College average: 19.4%</p>