<p>I invite everyone reading this thread to give a very careful reading to one of the sources I linked to in the thread-opening post: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/carnrose.pdf</a> </p>
<p>What is the recent reality in college admission? Is that the policy that you think is best for the country?</p>
<p>
[quote]
3. Students with higher incomes (who tend to be caucasian or Asian in ethnicity) tend to do better on standardized tests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Otoh – there are a considerable no. of low income Asians (in particular, those of SE Asian origin) but they tend to be overlooked (due to generally being lumped in one big category).</p>
<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>No – the vast majority of black students at Ivy League and other elite universities are from middle/upper middle class backgrounds or immigrant families w/ parents who have higher education.</p>
<p>TokenAdult – That's a heck of an article.</p>
<p>My question, generally (not in reference to the article), is:
Is an equivalent increase in 200 (or whatever) SAT I points merited by URM status?</p>
<p>200 points seems like a lot. I'm not sure how much it is in terms of a standard deviation, though...</p>
<p>TokenAdult - what year was that article published? It references data from 13 years ago?</p>
<p>Michelle Hernandez is downright wrong. The Gordon Winston/Cappy Hill study of potential low-income applicants found there were three times as many low-income students who met current academic criteria for prestige private colleges - without standards being lowered in any way - than were actually being accepted at these schools.</p>
<p>No great loss, though: Princeton's loss is UCLA's gain.</p>
<p>Think about it from an admission standpoint; Who would you admit?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Poor kid. Orphan. His life has sucked and he is exploited by the system and is in poverty. He has risen up and gotten 2300 on his SATs and a 3.9 GPA and is amazing.</p></li>
<li><p>Rich kid. Son of the CEO of some big Wall Street Bank. Got a 2100 on his SATs and a 3.6 GPA.</p></li>
<li><p>Middle Class Kid. Nice Life. 4.0 GPA 2300 SATs. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In order of being taken: 2, 1, 3.</p>
<p>The Middle class is hated and always expected to constantly be left out of the system.</p>
<p>Well, Infinite_Truth, you could also look at it this way:</p>
<p>percentage of super-poor kids: 20%
percentage of super-rich kids: 20%
percentage of middle-class kids: 60%</p>
<p>now those numbers are in no way supposed to be correlated to reality, but there are definitely far more middle-class kids than the other two economic brackets. thus, while middle-class children could potentially be valued less due to there being more of them, there are also probably more of them admitted than any of the other two economic brackets.</p>
<p>Private colleges certainly have a lot
to offer, but the real answer for
low income students is federal and
state support for low income families.
Currently in my state a low income
kid, say 36 grand fam income, would
get from 3 to 5 grand from the feds
and about 3 from the state. If that
student attends an oos then it's just
3 to 5 grand. The better state colleges in
my state have become subsidized ed
for middle class and rich. PSU main
campus has virtually no blacks and a
low income pop of around 10%. Until
that changes the other pa colleges are
not going to follow suit. Low income
kids generally stay close to home, when
the other colleges both state and private
are forced to compete then there'll be
change, until then, all this recent brouhaha
is only going to affect a very small
percentage of low income students. The
elites are whining because they like
to compete to show a broad range of
backgrounds, with their ridiculous admission
standards they have shut themselves out
of the low income game. victims of
their own success.</p>
<p>One thing is for sure: The amount of people admitted because of legacy preference is much lower than the number of people admitted because of racial preference.</p>
<p>That's the real problem.</p>
<p>I see a lot of statements in this thread that "middle class" applicants fare worse in applying to college and being admitted than "low-income" applicants, but I don't see any citations to any evidence to back up those statements. Statements like that have been commonly believed since at least the 1970s, but the best evidence I have found shows consistently that poor applicants are still by far the worst off in even getting admitted to college, ability being equal or even better.</p>
<p>Tokenadult,before I answer your question, let me note that my intent is NOT to belittle your question or your important social point that you raise.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, what do you think would be the answer? </p>
<p>For example, if you were a doctor,do you want rich, high paying clients or poor ones that you have to support? Lets be realistic!
Talk to any accountant that you want. Ask them if they would prefer rich, high paying clients or ones whose fees are a lot less because they can't afford much.</p>
<p>Colleges are no different unless they have a HUGE endowment. Yes, you will hear them say that they want to attract some deserving, low income folks for diversity reasons. However, this will be very limited or they won't have the funds to survive.</p>
<p>As visual proof, check out the percentage of kids, who attend public schools, who get into top, expensive colleges and ivys ,and compare these percentage to kids from expensive private schools. You will find that private schools have a MUCH, MUCH higher percentage of kids who attend the top private schools. Why? As a trustee from Yale noted to me on the plane," If kids attend expensive private high schools, they probably won't need financial aid in college."</p>
<p>Yes, there are schools such as Syracuse and others that are known to try to attract more economically and racial diverse people. However, even as schools like this, they are severely limited. If you don't have the majority paying a high sticker price, you won't have the money for the needy student, absent a huge endowment.</p>
<p>There is nothing in our constitution endowing each person the unconditional right to attend any college. Yes, the Declaration of Independence notes that " we may all be created equal," however, we don't live our lives equally!</p>
<p>Thus , the bottom line is related to the bottom line! Poorer kids can get an equal education at their local state university. Many of the most famous people attended state and city universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what do you think would be the answer?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What I notice about private educational services for K-12 students is that they are much more on offer for high-income, low-ability students (e.g., the various brand names of tutoring centers for struggling students, mostly located in well-off neighborhoods around the country) than for low-income, high-ability students. So, yes, the "natural" assumption is that colleges will serve most willingly the applicants with the most money, even if those are not the star applicants. And that does seem to be what the data shows. </p>
<p>I know by a wild guess from your screenname, taxguy, that you have thought about various issues of public policy related to tax rates and tax exemptions. And of course the general policy of the United States is to treat most educational organizations that are organized as nonprofit corporations as organizations that are not only tax-exempt, but also to which tax-deductible gifts can be made. So there is a public policy presumption, which goes back to England under its kings, that schools are organizations that benefit the public in general. From this point of view, it is regrettable (even if it is understandable) when a school declines to serve a learner whose abilities can benefit society at large greatly in favor of serving a learner who is from a family of greater wealth.</p>
<p>tax guy, I get your point and if
poor students really could get an
equal ed at the local state that
would be fine, even if they could
get a decent ed at the local state,
but as it stands, they can't even afford
to go to the local state -- yes, they
and their parents pay state taxes and
here in Pa at the same rate as the wealthy,
but those taxes are used to subsidize
the state colleges for wealthier taxpayers,
low income students are shut out, (high
prices and admission standards) even from
lower level states. Lower income families
are paying for a service to which they have
very limited access. Why should they
subsidize a wealthy kid's education?</p>
<p>The truth is that reverse discrimination exists. You're almost punished here in America if you are too wealthy or if you are not a minority.</p>
<p>Evidence, please? The Winston/Hill study clearly indicates the opposite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're almost punished here in America if you are too wealthy or if you are not a minority.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, evidence please? Have you ever lived anywhere else?</p>
<p>most colleges these days are need blind</p>
<p>Yes, colleges like to admit the kids of the super wealthy. They might donate large sums in the future.</p>
<p>"most colleges these days are need blind"
No, many colleges with large endowments are "need blind". The other 2500 or so colleges in this country without huge endowments are "need aware".</p>
<p>
[quote]
The truth is that reverse discrimination exists. You're almost punished here in America if you are too wealthy or if you are not a minority.
[/quote]
that's definitely an overstatement. and how about let's not bring race up so this thread does not degenerate into another Affirmative Action thread.</p>
<p>anyways, wealthier (generally those in and above the mid-middle class) kids are expected to have performed better academically than their peers of lower income backgrounds. colleges say that they evaluate an applicant's profile in regards to the applicant's background. they want to see that the applicant took advantage of as many opportunities presented to him or her as possible. since wealthier kids have more opportunities academically i.e. they go to better schools with better teachers, better facilities, more AP/IB classes, etc., they are expected to achieve more academically. so in that way, wealthy kids are "disadvantaged" in regards to college admissions. </p>
<p>that said, i think that being wealthy and having to take more AP classes and get good grades and test scores beats being poor any day. and also, in regards to college admissions it's the competition from other wealthy applicants, who make up a disproportionate amount of college applicants, especially at top schools, that makes the college admissions process so difficult.</p>