Do Colleges Actually Prefer to Admit Wealthy Students?

Applying to College
41

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is indeed what colleges say, but it's not even clear in the published evidence that this really happens. The best data sets suggest that richer kids really get a free pass even on their high school performance compared to poorer kids.</p>

42

<p>are wealthy people at an advantage even if they're not legacies or the kids of celebrities or something?</p>

<p>the common app doesn't even ask for income...</p>

43

<p>Yes, the Common Application doesn't ask for income, but it asks for a list of activities and other characteristics that may be more readily obtained by someone from a high-income family than from a low-income family. </p>

<p>Some parents have commented above in the thread that they think that their children can make a case that they maxed out their local opportunities (in view of their limited income) and that that is enough to level the playing field in gaining admission. I'd like to hear more about that.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
Yes, the Common Application doesn't ask for income, but it asks for a list of activities and other characteristics that may be more readily obtained by someone from a high-income family than from a low-income family.</p>

<p>Some parents have commented above in the thread that they think that their children can make a case that they maxed out their local opportunities (in view of their limited income) and that that is enough to level the playing field in gaining admission. I'd like to hear more about that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the more general question here (regardless of income) is should colleges choose, in their opinion, the best qualified candidates or should they engage in some sort of social discrimination. I think on the whole, most school would say it's their job to select the best applicants, period. The initial selection decision should be wholly based on the candidates accomplishments and abilities blind of race, income or other factors. </p>

<p>I'm very strongly against any bias, compensation or 'affirmative action' style policies of any kind. Giving someone an advantage because they're a minority (and therefore discriminating against the majority) is equally as bad as discriminating against the minority. Equally in regards to income, giving those with 'lower income' a calculated advantage only means there is a policy of actively discriminating against those that are financially better off. Any such policy is wrong. There's no such thing as 'reverse discrimination'... it's all discrimination. </p>

<p>In addition to those points, admissions polices based on active discrimination against a particular non-academic factor only serves to lower the admissions standards (you're accepting people that, on academics and achievements alone, would not pass the bar).</p>

<p>I wouldn't deny that, on average, top college admissions might be more skewed towards higher income families (if, on average, more affluent communities provide better education). However, that's not an argument to then say 'well then we'll just lower the standards for the poorer kids and that will fix the problem.' No, it won't. Instead we should focus on improving our education system so that those students can seek to achieve the level required to be admitted on their own merit without requiring discrimination against a different demographic. </p>

<p>If we lower the bar, everyone loses.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
I think on the whole, most school would say it's their job to select the best applicants, period.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If I agree with that proposition for the sake of discussion, I might continue by making the case that if student A, student B, and student C have indistinguishable achievements during their high school years, then the lowest-income student of the three ought to be regarded as the best applicant and enjoy the highest probability of admission. But that is precisely what was NOT happening at the majority of American selective colleges as recently as 2005. Yes, if we lower the bar, everyone loses, and if what it takes to clear the bar is daddy's money rather than the student's own jump, everyone loses too.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
Yes, if we lower the bar, everyone loses, and if what it takes to clear the bar is daddy's money rather than the student's own jump, everyone loses too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Unless the school takes that money to fund scholarships for those that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford that school...</p>

<p>Not something I totally agree with but just throwing it out there as there is an element of truth to it.</p>

47

<p>I think they should judge all students on the same standards, regardless of income or race. So what Hernandez said about low income students getting a lower bar for academics and extracurricular activities (since the affluent ones could afford test prep, private school, private lessons...) wouldn't happen. But neither would say, a low income student with around the same stats and EC involvement as a high income one be discarded because of income. Cuz if the chance for education is regardless of family background, there's more social mobility and that's a good thing. After that capitalism is fine, it's a good system... I just don't think it should have to be like that for education. If the colleges really need that money for full pay students, the government should help. Or they should just accept a whole bunch of super high contributors- like the ones that donate millions- to free up space so that the rest of the slots can be chosen more fairly (between full pay and students with need).</p>

48

<p>Well, I obviously haven't lived elsewhere. However, how can we Americans claim to promote equality when socio-economic and ethnic factors play such an important role in America. To me, such factors over which no one has control should play virtually no role in college admissions. Grades, test scores, activities, hobbies, and personality are all things over which we have control, and mainly these should determine whether or not we get into college.</p>

49

<p>This is slightly off topic, but I'd like to add a new angle to the discussion. No one yet has mentioned how wealthy kids are better able to "resume build." Tutors for SAT, professional essay revising, among other advantages.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
factors over which no one has control should play virtually no role in college admissions. Grades, test scores, activities, hobbies, and personality are all things over which we have control

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
No one yet has mentioned how wealthy kids are better able to "resume build."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The second quoted reply nicely responds to the first.</p>

51

<p>Tokenadult, you would think that being tax exempt would make institutions more sensitive towards serving the public.However, this is not always the case. Take PACS,which can be very biased towards political policies and ideologies. </p>

<p>Moreover, nothing in the tax law mandates that colleges much use their tax exempt status to helping out the needy or less privileged. Schools will probably act in the way that maximizes their survival,which means cater to the affluent as much as possible,while attempting to do some social good in taking some of the less fortunate. However this can only go so far especially for schools without any major endowment.</p>

<p>Take the top endowed schools: Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Frankly, it has only been recently for Harvard to provide a lot more aid. Until now, if you made more than $60,000, you weren't considered that needy. Now, all of a sudden, if you make less than $180,000, you get a special deal on tuition. What happened,however, was NOT out of the goodness of the trustee's hearts. Congress was investigating endowments and questioning whether schools should be allowed to keep their tax exempt status if they don't use enough of their endowed earnings. Harvard decided to be proactive in order to prevent Congress from taking action. </p>

<p>Again, I maintain that the bottom line is the bottom line for most schools. I am sure Harvard, Yale, and Princeton will still take a very high percentage of their kids from private schools, and I am sure private schools will still be overrepresented at top, private colleges.</p>

<p>Note: I don't necessarily agree that schools should act this way. I am just commenting on what I have seen and been told by college trustees.</p>

<p>Also, token adult notes where is the evidence for this statement"Quote:
You're almost punished here in America if you are too wealthy or if you are not a minority. "</p>

<p>Proof: I can cite lots of proof. For example, if you scrimped and saved all of your life to afford college for your kids, your kids won't qualify for any need based aid ever! If you are a complete spendthift, your kids will qualify for lots of aid.Moreover, look at the tax rates. Last I have seen, the top 4% of americans pay 65% of the taxes! When rebates are being issued under this new Bush stimulus plan, this group got NOTHING, NADA, Zilch! There are plently of cases where corporations and businesses that earn over a certain amount are subject to greater administrative hassles ( such as ADA act), higher estimated taxes etc. </p>

<p>Even when paying capital gains taxes, the rich got the shaft. If you are making over roughly $33,000 single or $64,000 married, you pay a maximum capital gains tax of 15%. However, people earning less than that pay ZERO in capital gains. Yes, you heard right, ZERO.Believe me there are lots of ways in which the affluent are punished. Welcome to our semi-socialist world.</p>

52

<p>As a middle class white parent myself, I understand where the criticism of affirmative action comes from. However, also being in close contact with minorities and those less advantaged, I also understand the troubles that they must overcome in the academic sense. There is a very patent reason as to why there are fewer lower-income students at the top schools (and a very small proportion of these students who actually apply): they have barriers in deficiencies of resources.</p>

<p>It is not easy to imagine yourself in their shoes. They, by and large, don't have access to tutoring (and the infamous SAT preps), good counselors, a good education system, and no "helicoptering parents." Now this is obviously not necessarily an excuse for students to underachieve, but it is definitely not a causation for them to overachieve. As such, the individuals who actually exceed their external influences, albeit their accomplishments might be relatively less substantial than their more advantaged counterparts, should deserve a spot. Their motivation and potential far exceeds that of the counterparts given their surrounding</p>

<p>That is why I am for socioeconomic boosts as a hook, but not so much for racial affirmative action if there wasn't any hindrances to the student's accomplishments. I think finances are a much greater indicator of hardships than is genetics. But that's the educational system for you. What're ya gonna do?</p>

53

<p>"No, many colleges with large endowments are "need blind"</p>

<p>There isn't a prestige college in the country that is "need-blind". The only question is the size of the check. (and they will tell you that straight up).</p>

54

<p>If a college wants to be "need-blind", it must also admit students who pay the full sticker price, right?</p>

55

<p>No mini, at many of the "prestige" colleges [especially the ones with the big endowments] the admissions offices and the financial aid offices are run seperately. Once admissions decides they are accepting a student they send the application to the financial aid office to work up the #'s, so both the FA award and the acceptance letter will be included in the big envelope. That's what need blind means. And I'd like you to post something from a "prestige" colleges admissions office/ FA office that says otherwise 'straight up".</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
most colleges these days are need blind

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They say they're need blind, but most of them are probably twisting the truth.</p>

57

<p>Keshira, just wanted to correct something in your post #47 -- since you mentioned what Michelle Hernandez said, and I was the person who brought her comments up in this thread to begin with.</p>

<p>She didn't say elite college were lowering the bar for socio-economic admits. (Whether they are or not, I don't know, but it wasn't exactly what Hernandez said.) She said they are looking hard for high achieving kids from poorer backgrounds. She didn't suggest the kids they're looking for are lower achieving kids.</p>

58

<p>And the Winston/Hill study proves she's wrong. With some notable exceptions (Smith, Amherst), the evidence strongly suggests they are NOT looking for high achieving kids from poorer backgrounds.</p>

59

<p>The opportunities may have nothing to do with family income. For my older daughter we had a relatively low income, but she had "opportunities" We happened to live next door to her favorite EC, she could attend every day, and it was pretty affordable. A lot of other ECs were available at bargain prices.
We have more money now, but to provide a simillar EC to the younger one I have to hire a chaperone and pay either for parking or taxi, which would increase the price of the EC more than 4-fold. The price becomes absolutely ridiculous. We cannot afford it.</p>

60

<p>It starts all the way back in kindergarten. A wealthy child is much more likely to have had parents that understand the value of education and went to schools with similar demographics. Those kids are much better prepared to navigate the admissions process. A disadvantaged student will, by demographics, be placed with poorer performing students/schools and not place as well in the admissions game. Lowering the admissions standards is not the answer, improving elementary education is. Unfortunately, the current one size fits all approach that NCLB takes actually slows the bright kids down while they wait for some to catch up. Not that there shouldn't be equal opportunity, the same teaching approach doesn't work for every child. So by the time that they are applying for college the disadvantaged have been pretty much run off and they couldn't pay for it anyway.</p>