Do Colleges Actually Prefer to Admit Wealthy Students?

Applying to College
1

<p>Can a student with limited means look as good in the college admission process as a well-off student? I saw a thread yesterday on another forum that reminded me just how much more wealthy some high school students who post here on CC are than others--and that student is probably more in touch with the other side than most college applicants. Today in 2008, are colleges taking into account what level of extracurricular involvement, challenging courses, and "balance" are possible for low-income students, as compared to high-income students? </p>

<p>Here are some links about the issue. The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students. (The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>

<p>BW</a> Online | July 7, 2003 | Needed: Affirmative Action for the Poor </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0621.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0615S.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/kahlenberg-affaction.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>A</a> Thumb on the Scale (May-June 2005) </p>

<p>The</a> Best Class Money Can Buy </p>

<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Recruiting a New Elite </p>

<p>Cost</a> Remains a Key Obstacle to College Access </p>

<p><a href="http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/Documents/_JKC_Achievementrap_edit%20(2)%20for%20website%20-%202-21-08.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jackkentcookefoundation.org/jkcf_web/Documents/_JKC_Achievementrap_edit%20(2)%20for%20website%20-%202-21-08.pdf&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Reason</a> Magazine - Legacies of Injustice</p>

2

<p>Wow... I'm Asian, poor, and "high-ability". Looks like I'm screwed...</p>

3

<p>welcome to America, mon.</p>

4

<p>Actually speedo this problem is not limited to U.S. I heard many low income students in U.K. are foregoing higher education altogether despite having the grades. This problem should be seen in a global context as well.</p>

5

<p>:(:(:(:(:(:(</p>

6

<p>I understand
capitalism is very popular
all over.</p>

7

<p>Interesting question, tokenadult.</p>

<p>I think it may depend very much on the college, the size of its endowment, and the zeal with which it pursues its mission to admit strong students from less-wealthy backgrounds.</p>

<p>It's a little skewed on CC, I think, because virtually everyone calls themselves "middle class." Middle class is a pretty elastic term!</p>

<p>I heard Michelle Hernandez on the radio once talking about how elite colleges are out there beating the bushes for poor, high-achieving kids, that being lower-income was actually an advantage at the very most selective colleges. I wonder if that's true.</p>

<p>Would a college that is well-endowed enough to pick up the tab for kids with slim resources really be trying to find kids to essentially pay to attend their school?</p>

<p>I didn't know if my son would be disadvantaged by our income (under 60K) at very expensive elite schools, but I figured it was worth applying just the same. They say they're need-blind, but if Michelle Hernandez is right, they're actually looking for kids with high need to create a healthier socioeconomic mix in their student population. Interesting issue.</p>

<p>My extremely limited experience has been positive. My son was accepted to a very generous needs-blind/meets-full-need school in ED. He says when he reads on Facebook about the other kids accepted there ED, they mostly seem like very affluent kids -- with a very small sprinkling of very-high-need kids. That may reflect the make-up of ED applicants more than anything else though.</p>

<p>I would never describe my sub-60K family as poor, though. Like everyone else on CC I tend to think of us as "middle class." ;) Except, we actually <em>are</em> middle in terms of income nationally and regionally. Still, middle cannot pay for an expensive private school. That's fine. We can't buy a new car or take a trip abroad either. Nobody owes us that.</p>

<p>However, if expensive elite colleges want students there other than their traditional population of wealthier kids, then they have to make that happen by supporting it. That's an institutional choice, and is theirs to make.</p>

<p>The problem is that the lower income kids have to really stand out in some way, in my opinion. I mean, even more so than the usual crop of high-income stand-outs. They need to bring something specific to the table; URM status, inspirational tale of stuggle, athletics, unique regional experience (i.e., coal miner's kid from Kentucky holler, etc.)</p>

8

<p>rentof2</p>

<p>I actually think that your son would have a harder time getting into schools than those that are either "wealthy" or "poor". We also have an income of just under $60,000 and I don't feel that we "add" to the socioeconomic diversity at all. "stuck in the middle" basically. However, my son has had good luck with his acceptances - still waiting on financial aid packages though. </p>

<p>With need blind an full need met, everyone is technically supposed to get a fair shot. And obviously your son did.</p>

9

<p>I understand the struggles of less well off families, but look at it from the side of those parents who both worked hard for double incomes and saved every extra penny in a college account for 18 years so our daughter could attend any school she was interested in. And since we're in a high cost of living area (Los Angeles) the life style of "high income" isn't the same as it is in, say, Kansas. We have lived very frugally, as we put a high premium on the value of education and were happy to give her a great start in life without debt. With schools like Harvard and Stanford giving free rides to anyone qualified whose income is low, I believe the playing field is more than fair.</p>

10

<p>I think that there are some very wealthy kids who get in but don't deserve it. Colleges want to raise their endowment and ensure that those wealthy students will donate as undergrads and as alumni. However, I think the percentage of wealthy kids who don't deserve to get in & do get it is significantly smaller than the amount who get in and do derserve to go that college. If you were a college, you would want kids who are a) going to give back to the college in a financial way and b) going to to make you sound better. Colleges love bragging about successful alums. I think they'll accept whoever they think will make them look good in the future.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
I understand the struggles of less well off families, but look at it from the side of those parents who both worked hard for double incomes and saved every extra penny in a college account for 18 years so our daughter could attend any school she was interested in. And since we're in a high cost of living area (Los Angeles) the life style of "high income" isn't the same as it is in, say, Kansas. We have lived very frugally, as we put a high premium on the value of education and were happy to give her a great start in life without debt. With schools like Harvard and Stanford giving free rides to anyone qualified whose income is low, I believe the playing field is more than fair.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And struggle with time to raise kids properly when both parents work.</p>

12

<p>jjcddg, my hunch is that you're right. I mean a sub-60K family can contribute very little in terms of EFC relative to the cost of attendance at an elite private school, however we're not poor enough for Pell grants so the college essentially has to cover that piece, too, for kids in this income bracket. Plus, there's no bragging rights to be had there about the number of Pell grant recipients they have.</p>

<p>On the other hand, and this is just my thinking only (based on nothing), I would think that those elite private colleges also need some kids like ours in the middle. It would be a very weird campus where all the kids were very affluent or very poor, with nothing spanning that gap. I think it would be unhealthy, very unnatural, and very uncomfortable especially for the poorer kids with no socio-economic bridge between those two worlds. It wouldn't reflect the "real" world in America, and would instead look like a developing country with the rich and the underclass exploited by them. It would be really creepy if you think about it... so I think there may be a little more room for kids like ours if only for that reason. If I was in college admissions and committed to getting in more low-income students, I'd sure want to get some middle income kids in too -- even if, in they end, they cost a little more than the high-needs students who can also get Pell and other government grants.</p>

13

<p>Kittymom, I agree with you about Stanford, Harvard, and schools of that ilk. The problem is that very few kids are excellent enough students to get in regardless of income. Very few. It's great to look at those programs as leveling the playing field for the highest academic achievers, but the field isn't level at private colleges virtually anywhere else. That's what the public univ. systems are for, of course, and community colleges.</p>

<p>I think there are a large number of kids who are excellent students, full of promise, but not fully realized as tip-top candidates who fall in a tough gap. It's not an insurmountable one. They can start at cc's, work, save, go on to a 4 year public, and do just fine. But for those kids whose middle income parents have worked and scrimped and saved like you, they have many more options besides Harvard, Stanford, et al, and public colleges -- and you should feel very proud of yourself for giving that to your kids. It's a wonderful gift.</p>

14

<p>From what I've heard they prefer a balance. Those who are high income basically pay for those who are low income. The low income kids make their school look better/more philanthropic, so they need to admit enough high income kids to balance it out. I think the people who are really getting screwed there are the middle class.</p>

15

<ol>
<li>We have superb public higher education in this country (eg SUNY system, U of California system, Cal State system, U Michigan, etc. etc.)</li>
<li>It is rational to assume that students from higher income backgrounds go to stronger high schools and have stronger educational backgrounds generally.</li>
<li>Students with higher incomes (who tend to be caucasian or Asian in ethnicity) tend to do better on standardized tests.</li>
</ol>

<p>Now, to play <em>devil's advocate</em>, private universities should only focus on the tippy-top of low income students, whereas others should carefully consider public universities.</p>

16

<p>"Plus, there's no bragging rights to be had there about the number of Pell grant recipients they have."</p>

<p>I read in one of the Berkeley threads that Berekeley likes Pell Grant recepients and that like 30% of the kids that go there receive one.</p>

17

<p>Private universities should be allowed to choose to admit whomever they please. They're not charities. They admit legacies because of the expected return on the "investment" (e.g., donation of a wing, establishment of a department, &c), and URMs because of the whole "diversity" thing.</p>

<p>Public universities, on the other hand, should be more strictly merit-based; i.e., neither affirmative action nor legacy preference should factor much in admissions decisions, and indeed they don't, at least not to the extent to which they do at private universities.</p>

<p>In general, though, I suspect that both very wealthy and very poor students are advantaged in the process; the former for the aforementioned monetary return to be accrued, and the latter for a desire to create "diversity."</p>

18

<p>What if a student is black and middle class? Does his middle class status overrule his URM advantage because he is neither poor enough to be looked at as a charity case, but not rich enough to supply a substantial portion of his tuition? </p>

<p>In that case, I'm screwed.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
What if a student is black and middle class? Does his middle class status overrule his URM advantage because he is neither poor enough to be looked at as a charity case, but not rich enough to supply a substantial portion of his tuition?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Our highly-competitive school had a smart, middle-class black kid sweep the Ivies. He literally got into every school (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, others) to which he applied. This was during a year in which nobody else got into Harvard, and perhaps one or two other students got into another Ivy.</p>

<p>Being middle-class isn't a disadvantage, but being very poor is an advantage. Being very rich is only an advantage when one's parents are connected in some way to the school of interest.</p>

20

<p>Personally, I don't think that we should really focus on ethnicity, but rather on income and socioeconomic status. Unis should brag about how many first generation college students and low-income students they have, not the percentage of minority applicants. Our society has swung from being race-focused to income/socioeconomic status focused. We have less de jure discrimination than de facto, the latter primarily caused by income differentials.</p>