DATA: Full-Freight and "Middle-Class" Customers

Parents Forum
41

<p>My wife works for a media publication that does a lot with demographics in their marketplace. Commissions some studies . Compiles lots of data. Several years ago she brought home some of the data and as I was leafing through it I came to a startling fact-there were less than 500 individuals (within the roughly 650,000 individuals in the sample area) making six figure salaries. My wife promptly informed me that she knew all of them. LOL.</p>

<p>A school teacher and a registered nurse with 10 years experience in the closest SMSA make $75,000, together.</p>

42

<p>nurses with experience in Texas made $50K in 1998
<a href="http://www.texasnurses.org/careerinfo/salaries.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.texasnurses.org/careerinfo/salaries.htm&lt;/a>
but teacher salaries are lower than average in the nation at $39K
however I don't know how many years experience that would be.
<a href="http://www.twc.state.tx.us/careers/teaching.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.twc.state.tx.us/careers/teaching.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Cost of living in Texas is a tad lower than many other areas- must be all that room to spread out :)
<a href="http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/CareerBriefs/costliv.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/CareerBriefs/costliv.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

43

<p>ek4, my youngest sister IS a registered nurse with 20 years experience in the closest SMSA to the ranch and without differentials she makes $36K. Texas is a big state and wages vary greatly. (2005 TSTA site says $41,770 for a twenty year experienced teacher.)</p>

44

<p>ek4, I did some checking on an R.N. site by zip code and found an "office" nurse average salary of $33,107 and a "supervisor" nurse average of $44,345. So based on that and a $34,540 for a teacher with ten years experience (our local district does not pay a differential above the state minimum), my $75K seems about right. We're just rolling in the money. And you know what? A pickup costs the same here as it does in San Francisco.</p>

45

<p>One point that has not yet been emphasized in this thread is that, IF a student does not have a strong hook (URM, recruited athlete, etc.) AND is in a family income category that makes need-based aid unlikely, that student, regardless of how stellar the qualifications may be, should not put too much stock in Early Action or Early Decision. </p>

<p>This is a regretable fact that I think we at CC have a duty to point out to applicants whenever the EA/ED discussions arise. For the above situation, it is most often "if you don't pay (full freight) you can't play." For all the research I did before my son applied, this aspect of financial aid applications was rarely mentioned, when in fact it is a strong factor in admissions, contrary to the conventional wisdom - "Apply for financial aid!"</p>

46

<p>ITA yulsie
My former sister in law is a nurse and her husband makes prosthetics and they have two kids ( hers) in college as well as three kids ( his & hers) still at home. They didn't have their kids apply for financial aid because they didn't think they would qualify. admittedly, they both are in state schools one in washington ( WSU) and one at Bloomington which are fairly inexpensive, but I think it is worth it to at least try.
Plus they didn't have either one look at any private schools, something that we did even though we make less than they do. We found that while the state schools didn't offer aid- the private school did, and to an extent that it virtually made tuition the same price as if D was attending instate</p>

47

<p>We shouldn't overestimate what this is about, or the number of "middle class" folks affected. Looking at the list first posted, I doubt there is a total of more than 130,000 entering first-year students at all of topflight private institutions combined. A little more than half of them are full freight. If the Harvard/Williams estimates of those above $100k receiving needbased aid are generalizable, and we take account of the publicly available Pell Grant numbers, the total number of middle class students ($40k-$100k) entering all of the institutions comibned is only about 6,500 give or take - add 3,000 if you like - it will still be under 10,000 students. There sure aren't that many (more folks took cover in the Superdome today), and schools are hardly competing for them! You might find almost that many at Berkeley/UCLA alone!</p>

48

<p>How many of those 6,500 - 9,500 do you think are athletes?</p>

49

<p>Mini do you feel this is an argument for public universities. Do you think that two students applying with the same scores and academic ranking, one from a family whose income is $65,000 and the other from a family whose income is three times higher, will typically result in the wealthier student being accepted even in a need blind institution? Do you think that parents and students are intentionally being decieved to help schools gain application numbers? Why would a middle class family apply to a school that has a record of rejecting their financial situation?</p>

50

<p>Mr.B - I'd ask the question a different way. Why is it that any number of educational consultants boast that they can get your (admittedly smart) kid into a selective school, but virtually none boast about getting your kid into that school with enough FA to attend? Rachel Toor was pretty plain about her experience -- applicants who weren't even BWRKs could attend Duke if the money was right. The notion that selective colleges take the "best" kids and that therefore only "less than best" attend non-selective schools (where they can get enough FA to attend) is, ah, logically problematic.</p>

51

<p>Wow! Many questions there! I'll give you my opinions, but they are only that; other folks may spin it differently.</p>

<p>First of all, the data don't lie, so I don't think this is an argument for public universities per se. If you took the 6,500-9,500 middle class students out of the top 100 or so privates and put them in publics, it would barely make a dent - either in the privates or the publics. The numbers are just so small! If every $40k-$100k student disappeared tomorrow from Amherst (as previously noted), I doubt anyone would even notice (except perhaps on some sports teams, but even there, I'm not too sure.) Those few they accept, however, are valuable to the institution, or they wouldn't be there. The adcoms weren't doing them any favors, but accepted them for the good of the institution.</p>

<p>Secondly, I don't believe there is a school in the country that is need-blind, either in the aggregate or toward individual students. The question is the degree to which they use the information. The adcoms are very, very professional people, with decades of experience. They know what zip codes mean. They have lots and lots of contact with GCs at the private feeder schools. They know what equestrian team means, or squash player, or letter from a Senator (or the state legislator's daughter.) Let's give them some credit for being professional, and knowing what their jobs require them to know. (They also know that, in aggregate, a 1400 SAT score is a 1200 plus $100,000 in income, so they also know that, academically, the 1300 SAT score of the student with the lower income is better than the 1400 of the latter - but it doesn't figure into their decisionmaking - more likely, the former will have to score HIGHER, to make up for the lack of equestrianism, or simply the 11 APs.) They also know what the financial aid budget is. Mostly, they know inertia - even if they wanted to have the ship change course (as I've written about elsewhere), it is not an easy thing to do, and it costs a lot in time, energy, and money, and over a decade or more. I assume that, at least at the top of the heap, the schools get what they want - or are use to. If more than 50% of the class doesn't require need-based aid, it is because the institution intends it that way.</p>

<p>Thirdly, do I think parents are being deceived? Well, not quite. The "theory of the leisure class" would hold that the prestige of a leisure class object would not exist unless others not of a leisure class can aspire to it. If it is true that NO middle class kids got in, the school would lose some of its luster. So, by admitting a few, and rejecting many, it gains in prestige. Some will therefore always beat the odds - and again, we really don't know how many applications are put in by each income class, though it is extremely unlikely that they are proportional to acceptances. (We know that, even if passing, if we assuming that the chances for a developmental admit approach 100%, and the legacy admission rate is 39%, as it is at Princeton.) So, yes, I do think middle class parents are deceived by the "published" odds, but after that, it is mostly self-deception.</p>

<p>Fourth - why would a middle class ($40k-$100k) family so apply? Well, I represent one. We did so because the luxury good IS good - not a necessary good, but good nonetheless. And (we already knew), if it worked, we believed it would be more affordable than the state university (turned out to be around half the cost.) We hoped we could beat the odds. My kid happened to win the lotto, but it is not something that could be counted upon, and we were prepared for other alternatives.</p>

<p>Consumer behavior is often irrational, and especially so when it involves the future of our kids. I have just written an article for a magazine on a product that essentially attempts to teach "Phonics in Utero" (I'm not joking), and one of the arguments cited in the advertising is improved school performance. Well, it if were true and it worked, wouldn't you feel at least a little guilt for neglecting your own kid? On these boards, the most irrational behaviors I see are around kids (and their parents) who think they are "pre-med", choosing schools with the highest costs, and the highest "weed-out" rates. I can (just as an example) demonstrate better med. school admissions from Hope or Kalamazoo Colleges, or from being the top student at the state university than for the average student at Johns Hopkins from today to the day after tomorrow, and it isn't going to make one iota worth of difference for 95% of kids and their parents. It doesn't make any sense in a rational way, but prestige can place blinders on us all.</p>

52

<p>I know some adcoms at a very selective school that claims to be need blind and they maintain they are truly need blind in their admissions process. They do take into account that an SAT of 1400 from a kid who has not had certain advantages is indeed better than a 1500 from one that has had every advantage. They are even more impressed if that 1400 kid held a job. Travel abroad, etc. has little impact in comparison. Interesting though, often need blind accepted students elect not to attend because the package often contains loans and some parental contribution and the top State U's cover everything for this kind of kid. The already good yield would even be better if it weren't for this factor, and the yield of middle class kids would be even better. This is one reason some of the top schools now offer full rides to accepted students whose family makes under $40,000. However, we all know that even $100,000 does not put one on "easy street."</p>

53

<p>What you are saying is that they are NOT need-blind, and in fact are using information about need for some poorer students (and ranking them against wealthier ones) in their decisionmaking process. Amherst is the poster child for doing just that - they claim to be "need-blind" - and then put a priority on admitting Pell Grant recipients (and ending up with 16% really poor students, and virtually no middle class ones in the process - there are still 54% receiving no need-based aid.). (That is true at all the Questbridge schools.) Mind you - I don't attach any particular ethical significance to it one way or the other. But you've pretty much demonstrated how "need aware" they are.</p>

54

<p>They have indices based upon school location, student challenges overcome, first generation or not, etc., not income, which defines what is meant by need. One might argue the factors listed are a proxy for need, but income is ignored.</p>

<p>Here is an example from a Newsweek article about UChicago's admissions committee:</p>

<p>The next case generates more heat. Kevin has flitted through almost every activity in his high school. Trouble already: serial joiners don't impress Chicago. Better to pour years of devotion into a few deep interests. In the words of Michael Behnke, a university vice president who oversees admissions, "The kid who touches every group has no impact. He won't be missed." O'Neill, meanwhile, has spotted something else: Kevin plays several sports. O'Neill observes that smart athletes manage time well, and find unorthodox ways to succeed. He recalls a recommendation written years ago by a high-school football coach: "This boy reads poetry and physics in the locker room. I don't have another one like him." </p>

<p>Kevin's case also broaches what Chicago calls "the grits argument." Can this country boy succeed in a bigger setting? Chicago aggressively recruits small-town kids, often waiving their application fees, even though on entering, their academic skills can trail those of top private-school grads by two years. </p>

<p>Why are they often desirable? Peter Chemery, an associate admissions director, explains that small-town kids tend to be well developed as individuals. Like big-city kids, they've had a wider range of experiences than sheltered suburbanites. By that measure, the truly disadvantaged student is the child of a soccer mom, shuttling from one scheduled activity to another. "This image of 'well- rounded' suburban students with long lists of extracurriculars is an utter fiction created by the college-admissions industry," Chemery says. </p>

<p>After debating Kevin's future for 21 minutes, 11 members of the committee make a show of hands. The tally: five to admit, four to defer, one to deny, one unsure. O'Neill rules. Kevin is in.</p>

55

<p>If the kid's dad is in prison, mom suffers from a crippling disability, the family has 5 kids, the applicant works two jobs, lives in east L.A., and goes to a school where 86% of the students drop out, what is it, exactly, that is being ignored? ;)</p>

56

<p>The short answer: Income, for what it's worth!</p>

57

<p>"Fourth - why would a middle class ($40k-$100k) family so apply?"
Mini--sometimes they're just naive. I'm glad I didn't read all this before my kids applied.</p>

58

<p>Just returned from dropping D off at Amherst, where we were informed that over 50% of the 2009 kids receive aid, and for the first time ever, more than 50% of the students come from public, not private schools. Surprise! my D is one of those middle class income kids, (that your statistics say don't exist) and has received a nice package. Interestingly, at the FA orientation, we were told that Amherst accepts FAFSA data, but realizes that the parental contribution amounts are outdated and unrealistic, and strives to avoid having the kids use federal FA, but rely on the college's monies more. In so doing, they can be more reasonable about the amount that the parents can pay, not tied to FAFSA. We were told that if a student gets even $1.00 from federal funds, then the college was bound by the FAFSA figures. It now makes sense - when I saw what FAFSA said I could afford, I nearly gagged. Amherst has us paying less than half, and with outside scholarships, less than 1/4 of what FAFSA sais we could afford. BTW, most of the kids on my D's floor are those middle class kids that aren't enrolled. How do they do that??????</p>

59

<p>Ok my take: Equalibrum Theory aka John Nash</p>

<p>Wealthy guy with kid that's smart, attended top flight HS, good scores and recs. - This kid will and should apply to top schools because he can afford the COA and is able to manage the course work. He has excellent chance of acceptance as Mini data indicates. Should this kid apply to 2nd tier schools-NO! because the cost of these schools are very nearly the same as the 1st tier schools with lesser brand recognition and challenge. These schools also know that this wealthy kid is qualified for top schools and will guess that if a top school offers him an acceptance he will take it and ignor the 2nd tier school. This kid's safety is the flagship state school because they have to accept him if he applied. This wealthy kid and family says, that either you go to #1 or the state school. If you go state, you'll be in honors student, and if go into a technical field you'll have as good and probably better education than #1 school, PLUS you'll have $26k/yr ($44k- $18K) leftover to later finance your future. ("wealthy flocking to state schools") or to play with while in school. </p>

<p>Middle income family & kid with even better scores and recs than wealthy kid.
Top school offers need based scholarship of 50% COA ($44K/yr), leaving $22k to finance. Kid knows that his competition will be smart wealthy kids and extremely smart middle income kids, exactly where this kid fits is unknown to him, at time of acceptance. This school although has made an offer knows that the chance for him is fairly small because... this kid has also applied to 2nd tier school and was accepted at merit based, 60% COA scholarship (36k/yr), leaving $14.4k to finance. Kid has applied and accepted at state school, which of course, offers no merit or need based aid and thus must finance full COA of $18k/yr. This applicant already knows his competitiion because it his peer group in HS, thus will probably do OK at 2nd tier school. His family looks at the numbers and logically chooses the choice that they have saved and sacrifice for - 2nd tier. Top school means even more sacrifice and family will also say "what is the guarantee that he will do well and be successful at #1 school"-none. His safety school is another, like, 2nd tier school. A state school will cost him more bucks and not challenge him academically.</p>

<p>Lower income family and kid. Kid has same credentials as previous kids. The Haratio Alger kid. He has nothing to lose economically or socially and in fact every thing to gain by applying and being accepted to #1 school. He of course gets fullride. #1 school fulfulls social obligations and adds to its prestige. He also applies to 2nd tier schools which may or maynot give significant need based aid. Even if he gets full ride at 2nd tier school, why should he attend when he can get into #1 school for same cost. State school is safety and offer is less than full COA because thinking is that kids should pay something regardless of income or lack of income. </p>

<p>Put your own numbers and conditions into the 3 cases. What would you do? Would you make the same choices?</p>

60

<p>I'm not sure the assumption of no $$ at the flagship state school for middle income is accurate. It's been my experience that $$ are often granted to kids with the stats assumed here. Other than that, I largely agree with the three scenarios.</p>