Does the Middle Class Take the Biggest Beating in College Admissions?

<p>Think about it. The upper class students often have connections such as legacy status and have parents that can buy their way into college. Cost isn't a problem for them either. What's a $40,000 tuition when you have a 7-figure income? </p>

<p>The lower class students get sympathy from the top colleges. They had tough lives and probably didn't attend the best high schools, so if their grades are a little low comapred to other applicants, their low income is taken into consideration. </p>

<p>What's left? The middle class. Middle class students have family incomes that are too high to gain the sympathy given to the lower class, but too low to buy a seat at a college and afford a $40,000 tuition without loans. Therefore, is it somewhat true that middle class students have the most trouble getting into colleges?</p>

<p>State college. Also, what happened to scholarships? If I remember correctly, scholarhships are given regardless of financial status.</p>

<p>They don't have more trouble getting in, they have more trouble PAYING FOR top colleges. Overall, however, the poor have the hardest time as most schools do not meet need.</p>

<p>There have been thousands of posts on this. The middle class is not well represented at top schools that "meet need." The EFC generally horrifies the middle class family.</p>

<p>The middle class buying power has declined tremendousaly in this Country.</p>

<p>"State college."</p>

<p>So a middle class kid with top grades and a high SAT score has to settle for a state school? </p>

<p>"Also, what happened to scholarships? If I remember correctly, scholarhships are given regardless of financial status."</p>

<p>Not everyone is CC smart. Many scholarships are academic relate and some students just don't qualify for a substantial academic scholarship. Also, many schools, including some of the more elite colleges, don't even give scholarships. My chem teacher, who was about 26 years old when I had him soph year, was a really good student who attended NYU but didn't get a dime in scholarship $. He's still paying student loans and still lives w/his mother due to the overwhelming cost of an NYU education. If he was rich, the costs wouldn't be a big issue. If he was lower class, a lot of his education would be covered by government grants. IMO, the middle class has the toughest time paying for college.</p>

<p>In a way, the middle class also has the toughest time getting into college, even moreso than the lower class. Pretend that there is one seat remaining at a college that these 3 hypothetical applicants are applying for:</p>

<p>Student #1
SAT: 2100
GPA: 4.0
ECs: excellent
Family income: $70,000 per year</p>

<p>Student #2
SAT: 1700
GPA: 3.2
ECs: okay
Family income: $600,000 per year.
Hook: Parents donate $ to the college. Cost isn't a problem.</p>

<p>Student #3
SAT: 1700
GPA: 3.2
ECs: Okay
Family Income: $20,000 per year.
Hook: Lack of income translated into a tough life. High school was a hellhole, making it hard to learn.</p>

<p>Student #2 is rich and has parents who donate and can easily pay the college. Student #3 is poor and his/her experience in a bad high school could be viewed by adcoms as a justification for his/her lower stats. Middle Class Student #1 has none of this going for him/her. Of course applicant 1 appears top be the most qualified on paper. However, due the aforementioned factors, the seat at the college could go to any one of the 3, even though #1 is the most qualified.</p>

<p>Settle? I really hate people like you. You prolly just wanna go to a college due to the name and not the quality of education.
Also, your chem teacher is a fool to have gone to NYU and not realize the downside to it. For a seemingly smart man, he made quite the stupid choice. Also, if you're not "Smart" enough for a scholarship, then you are the only one to blame and must deal with that and go to a school you can afford.</p>

<p>Actually poor people have it the worst in pretty much every way. Student #3 as you mentioned, usually do NOT get into TOP colleges. His SAT is too low and GPA is too low. He has those low scores probably due to the fact that he went to a crappy high school and his parents couldn't afford him tutoring and he spent most of his time working to support the family. Thus, either he can choose to go to a community college or a state school. If he goes to a state school, he will probably get a lot of financial aid. But after he's done with college, he will probably need to pay off all the loans, which will probably take a long time since he is poor. So he needs to get a job immediately and start saving up. Student #1 actually has it pretty good. That's because if he is very qualified, he can get a lot of scholarships and merit aids. Moreover, top universities usually have a lot of money, so they meet most of the needs.</p>

<p>I wouldnt use the wording "settle for a state college," but and argument could be that most state colleges are large and have large lectures, whereas the student may want and be more productive in a smaller more intimate environment. If that is the case, and the student is not exceptionally talented, but was able to get into a mediocre--relatively good small liberal arts college, being middle class could be a problem.<br>
Also, I believe the Ivies only give money to needy students, so if a student say, wanted to go into business, and got into Wharton, I am not personally aware of any way for a middle class student to pay, besides small outside scholarships, which are relatively hard to come by and are usually not sufficient to pay such a large tuition.</p>

<p>"They had tough lives and probably didn't attend the best high schools, so if their grades are a little low comapred to other applicants, their low income is taken into consideration."</p>

<p>No, you are mistaken. The colleges want to see excellence in spite of low income -- it shows the applicant has overcome adversity. But if the applicant has not-quite-top stats and doesn't show the excellence of other applicants, but is a low-income student, it shows he or she didn't overcome adversity. And this isn't even considering that most universities don't have need-blind admissions / aren't able to meet all of a student's need.</p>

<p>In addition, I find it insulting that a person has to "settle" for a state school.</p>

<p>"But after he's done with college, he will probably need to pay off all the loans, which will probably take a long time since he is poor. So he needs to get a job immediately and start saving up. "
If the student is still poor after college that has nothing to do with his/her family's situation, that's on them. I'm not poor but I'm not getting money from my parents after I graduate from college, so my loans are on me to pay- my parents arent paying them for me any more than a poor person's parents would, and I would imagine I'm not alone in this.</p>

<p>"Student #1 actually has it pretty good. That's because if he is very qualified, he can get a lot of scholarships and merit aids. Moreover, top universities usually have a lot of money, so they meet most of the needs."
Top universities aren't giving their need-based aid to upper middle class kids, they're giving the money to the poor kids. Most top universities have few or no merit scholarships. I know many, many middle class kids who end up with much more college debt than any poor kids because the poor kids get need-based aid and the middle class kids don't but their parents cant/wont pay 45,000 a year.</p>

<p>life ain't fair; i don't see why you had to make a topic for others to confirm the facts of admission for you when you could have done so yourself. Besides, a poor kid getting 1700 on his SATs is probably more of a feat than a middle-classed kid getting 2100. The rich one can serve as ambition.</p>

<p>"In addition, I find it insulting that a person has to "settle" for a state school."</p>

<p>It wasn't meant to be an insult. It just doesn't seem fair that an excellent student who aspires to attend an Ivy and has a good shot at making that Ivy would have to attend a state school, just because he/she doesn't get the grant $ that the poor get or have the income of the rich. I have nothing against state schools. There are many good ones. Nonetheless, an intelligent middle class student should have the option to attend a state school or an Ivy league if accepted. However, since he/she is in the middle class, this option is may be impossible.</p>

<p>The idea of state college as a justification for the cost problem the middle class faces in college admissions I don't agree with. I could settle for a state school, but other middle class students might not want to go there. If they're good enough and get into an Ivy, they have the right to attend it. A factor such as $ shouldn't prevent them from attending their #1 choice school. Obviously, $ isn't an issue for the rich and a great deal of the college tuition of the poor is covered by grant $. </p>

<p>"Settle? I really hate people like you. You prolly just wanna go to a college due to the name and not the quality of education.
Also, your chem teacher is a fool to have gone to NYU and not realize the downside to it. For a seemingly smart man, he made quite the stupid choice. Also, if you're not "Smart" enough for a scholarship, then you are the only one to blame and must deal with that and go to a school you can afford."</p>

<p>Calm down! This is the furthest thing from the truth w/me. I have chosen to attend St. John's University in Queens, hardly a top 20 school. I loathe prestige whores since I have seen several people, including my chem teacher, that attend elite universities and (literally) pay for it later. There are so many people on this site who somehow think that if they go to an Ivy or similar school, they'll be set for life. This attitude is just dumb, especially coming from the the geniuses on CC who should know better.</p>

<p>I have chosen to attend St. John's b/c I got a scholarship there. I was contemplating NYU for the longest time and after going to the open house, I realized how awesome the school is. Why St. John's then? I chose it because it won't put a huge financial burden on my parents, who are paying the tuition, or myself since I won't have to pay off loans for years like my chem teacher. Could I have chosen to attend a more prestigious university than St. John's? Probably, but it isn't worth the $ IMO.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So a middle class kid with top grades and a high SAT score has to settle for a state school?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know if I would necessarily call it a matter of 'settling'. Many of the state schools are better than many of the private schools out there. For example, I'd probably prefer to go to Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, or Virginia than to most of the private schools out there. Some of the individual colleges that comprise Cornell University are contract colleges that receive subsidies from the state of New York, and hence charge cut-rate tuition for state residents. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Not everyone is CC smart. Many scholarships are academic relate and some students just don't qualify for a substantial academic scholarship. Also, many schools, including some of the more elite colleges, don't even give scholarships. My chem teacher, who was about 26 years old when I had him soph year, was a really good student who attended NYU but didn't get a dime in scholarship $. He's still paying student loans and still lives w/his mother due to the overwhelming cost of an NYU education. If he was rich, the costs wouldn't be a big issue. If he was lower class, a lot of his education would be covered by government grants. IMO, the middle class has the toughest time paying for college.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid I can't really sympathize with this argument. After all, you brought up the notion of elite schools such as NYU. Look, if you're good enough to get admitted to an elite school, then you're good enough to also get a full ride somewhere else. Yeah, it probably won't be as good of a school, but hey, it's a full ride. </p>

<p>Then again, it might be as good of a school. My brother got into MIT early, but with no aid. Then he got into Caltech - with full ride + stipend. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which one he chose. Other top schools like Duke and Carnegie-Mellon also give out substantial merit aid. If you're good enough to get into one of the very best schools, then you are probably also good enough to get one of these rides. If you choose not to take it, well, I don't know what to tell you. </p>

<p>So when you say that your chem teacher got really good grades yet didn't get any money from NYU - well, if he was really such a good student, he should have been able to get a full ride somewhere else. Otherwise, he must not have been that good of a student. Furthermore, if you are just going to end up being a teacher anyway, then you don't need to go to a school like NYU. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, I believe the Ivies only give money to needy students, so if a student say, wanted to go into business, and got into Wharton, I am not personally aware of any way for a middle class student to pay, besides small outside scholarships, which are relatively hard to come by and are usually not sufficient to pay such a large tuition.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most top universities have few or no merit scholarships. I know many, many middle class kids who end up with much more college debt than any poor kids because the poor kids get need-based aid and the middle class kids don't but their parents cant/wont pay 45,000 a year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It should be said that EVERY top school does indeed offer significant 'merit scholarships' in a certain sense. I am talking, of course, about the funding that PhD students at those schools get regardless of income level. For example, I know a number of Harvard PhD students who are veritable millionaires, but are getting full funding+ stipend from Harvard anyway. For example, I know some people who have worked in the finance industry for awhile and have made enough money that they never have to worry about money ever again. But they decide they'd like to spend the rest of their lives being academics, so they decide to get a doctorate from Harvard. Harvard still gives them full funding regardless. These guys clearly don't need the money. But, hey, if Harvard is just going to hand it to them, why not take it? That's basically a merit scholarship right there. </p>

<p>Furthermore, in many cases, the doctoral stipend you can get from a private school will exceed what you can get from a state school. Almost all full-time doctoral programs waive tuition. The question is about the stipend. I know several Harvard doctoral students who found that the stipend they would get from Harvard exceeded what they would get from the equivalent doctoral program at a state school - sometimes by almost double. The choice was already easy before, as Harvard had a better doctoral program, but now because of the stipend difference, the choice is not a close call whatsoever. Let's see, you can go to a better and more famous doctoral program that ALSO gives you far more money, or you can go to a less famous and worse program that gives you less money. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. </p>

<p>Now of course one might say that not everybody is going for a PhD. However, it is also true that not everybody 'needs' an elite undergrad education. Like I said, if you're good, you should be able to garner a full ride, even if it's from a no-name school. While you won't get an 'elite' degree, you will at least have a debt-free degree. </p>

<p>Once again, I would invoke my brother. He got a full ride + stipend to go to Caltech for undergrad. Now he is getting a full ride + stipend for graduate school at Stanford. {He also got a full ride + stipend to go to a prep boarding high school}. He has never paid a penny in his life for any of his elite private-school education. On the contrary, * the schools have paid him*. His whole life, he has been 'making money' by going to school. If he can do that, other people can do that too. </p>

<p>And besides, you invoked the notion of Wharton, so let's talk about Wharton. The truth is, the plurality of Wharton BS graduates are going to become Wall Street investment bankers, where they can make 125k+ to start. So I don't exactly feel a lot of sympathy that a middle-class kid might have to go into great debt to get such a degree. It's like feeling 'bad' for medical students who go into a mountain of debt while they're in med-school. You don't feel bad because you know that they will quickly be able to pay it all off once they are fully-practicing doctors. I don't feel bad in the least for people going into debt to get their MBA's at Harvard Business School, when you consider their opportunities. Hence, I don't feel that bad about people going into debt to get their BS degrees from Wharton.</p>

<p>One might reply - what if you don't want to become a Wall Street investment banker? Then the answer is simple - you don't have to go to Wharton. Like I said, you can choose a lesser school that will offer you a full ride. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No, you are mistaken. The colleges want to see excellence in spite of low income -- it shows the applicant has overcome adversity. But if the applicant has not-quite-top stats and doesn't show the excellence of other applicants, but is a low-income student, it shows he or she didn't overcome adversity. And this isn't even considering that most universities don't have need-blind admissions / aren't able to meet all of a student's need.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this is right on the money. Let's not romanticize the life of the poor. Let's face it. Many of them won't even go to college at all. Many will get caught up in the destructive lifestyle of gangs and crime. When you're a young kid growing up in ghetto infested with gangbangers, it's hard to resist that lure to become a gangster yourself. Even if you don't live in such a neighborhood, you probably don't have parents who don't place value on education, especially higher education. I know one guy who basically went to college against his parents's wishes, as they wanted him not to go to college at all, but rather to get a job right after high school to help support the family. In fact, even high school was rather suspect, as the family placed pressure on the kids to drop out of high school in order to make money. That's why he's the only person in his family to have even graduated from high school. It all worked out well for him - he's now a graduate student at Harvard - but it was a very tough choice to defy his family like that. </p>

<p>And besides, I think we are discounting the fact that problems of the poor don't end after they get into college. They still have to GRADUATE from college. It has been posited in this thread that less qualified poor students can nevertheless get into college, because the college sympathisizes with their plight, and then once they're there, they may get a full ride because of their low income. Yes, that's probably true. But what happens when they are IN college? Because they are less prepared, they tend to do poorly. Many of them will flunk out or drop out. While a middle-class student had to go into debt, at least he is better prepared and so he will probably get a degree. The poor student may never get a degree. And even of those that do graduate, many of them will barely make it with mediocre GPa's, which will detract from their ability to go to graduate school or get a good job. </p>

<p>I know several people whom this happened to. Some poor students were brought in for undergrad, and then just got absolutely mercilessly crushed. One of them at one point literaly had a 0.5 GPA (half D's, half F's). Within several years, they were all expelled for poor performance. The students were simply not prepared for the rigors of the school. So what was so good about the fact that they got easier admissions and need-based rides? They all ended up with no degrees and ruined academic records. Yeah, maybe the middle class kids had to undergo a more rigorous admissions process and had to go into debt. But at least they got their degrees.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It wasn't meant to be an insult. It just doesn't seem fair that an excellent student who aspires to attend an Ivy and has a good shot at making that Ivy would have to attend a state school, just because he/she doesn't get the grant $ that the poor get or have the income of the rich. I have nothing against state schools. There are many good ones. Nonetheless, an intelligent middle class student should have the option to attend a state school or an Ivy league if accepted. However, since he/she is in the middle class, this option is may be impossible.</p>

<p>The idea of state college as a justification for the cost problem the middle class faces in college admissions I don't agree with. I could settle for a state school, but other middle class students might not want to go there. If they're good enough and get into an Ivy, they have the right to attend it. A factor such as $ shouldn't prevent them from attending their #1 choice school. Obviously, $ isn't an issue for the rich and a great deal of the college tuition of the poor is covered by grant $.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't like how you are talking about this subject as a matter of 'rights'. Look, nobody has the 'right' to attend any school, even if they get admitted to it. If you want to go to a school, you have to figure out how you're going to afford it. If that means going into debt, then so be it. If you're not willing to do that, then don't go. </p>

<p>Look, the benefits of being rich is that you get to enjoy privileges that others don't. While that might sound cynical, it also serves as THE SPUR to become rich. Why try to become rich, if you just end up with the same options as everybody else? What would be the point? A main reason to try to make a lot of money is so that you can set up your family with more options. That's why a lot of people I know are, right now, killing themselves in investment banking, corporate law, medicine, private equity, and other high-paying but high-stress jobs. They are doing it because 20 years in the future, they want to have the kind of money to give their kids more choices in life. </p>

<p>Look, if you're really a rock star, you ought to be able to get a full ride from at least a less prominent school, and in some cases, a highly prominent school. Like my brother. Like I said, he's never paid a dime for any of his elite private school education. On the contrary, he's always GOTTEN PAID.</p>

<p>If you want to talk about things that are unfair, I still suspect that the deck is stacked against the poor. I'll give you an example. Most NCAA scholarship sports are not available to most poor kids. Frankly speaking, most poor people have reasonable access to football, basketball, baseball, track, and (maybe) soccer. I don't know too many poor high school districts that offer crew, golf, swimming, gymnastics, lacrosse, sailing, field hockey, ice hockey, or water polo. But I know many middle-class high school districts that offer at least some of them. I know a number of middle-class students who got full rides to Stanford - on swimming or water polo athletic scholarships. If they had grown up poor, they wouldn't have had the facilities to train to be good enough to have ever gotten those scholarships in the first place. Yet these middle-class people were able to parlay their special athletic opportunities to go to Stanford on a full athletic ride + stipend. </p>

<p>The same could be said for other extracurricular activities. Take music. Let's face it. Most music scholarships are offered for instrumental work that is unavailable to poor students. Almost no poor high schools have full student orchestras or choirs. The same is true of art - few poor high schools offer extensive art opportunities. </p>

<p>Look, the point is this. If anybody ought to have a real beef about unfairness, it's the poor. Whatever perks the poor happen to get in terms of admissions and financial aid is still minor table scraps compared to the rest of the adversity they have to face. </p>

<p>Like I said in my previous post, the real goal is not just to get into a top private school like an Ivy. The real goal is to GRADUATE. What's so good about going to a top school, only to flunk out? Yet that's what tends to happen to many of these poor students because they just aren't well prepared. Yeah, maybe the middle-class student has to go to a lesser school because of financial or admissions reasons. But at least he'll graduate. The poor student may not even graduate.</p>

<p>I think the "upper class" kids whose parents are "rich" have it the worst. Turns out my parents are a lot richer than I expected. I won't be getting a penny in grants or financial aid. Even UC Berkeley is going to be tough to pay off. Guess I just have to try to get teh degree in 2 years and find a job quick.</p>

<p>I think 'rich kids with connections' should get in on their grades and scores ONLY. I always hear the middle class has it easy they do not deserve special treatment- and the rich? I am sick of meeting (at Princeton) kids who are basically illiterate. All they want to do is drink and hang out at the eating clubs getting by on mommy and daddy's status. The parents pave the way for them in every way. Everyone knows who they are and the Admissions offices are a big disappointment for allowing this to happen and pretending they are balancing it out by taking in minorities- yeah right. Perhaps its time to exclude the dummys with alot of $$$$. Besides as a student they offer absolutely nothing to my class. They are losers I would rather be in school with the parent who earned the money not the offspring who needs mommy and daddy to make it happen for them. Is it fair to study all the time to get in and then sit next to someone who hasnt read a book in 5 years? I am not exaggerating one bit. Seriously can you honestly call that a proper college admissions process? Princeton sure doesnt need the money from more legacies. Forget the diversity minority stories get rid of the DUMB legacies they are lazy boring and useless.</p>

<p>"I'm afraid I can't really sympathize with this argument. After all, you brought up the notion of elite schools such as NYU. Look, if you're good enough to get admitted to an elite school, then you're good enough to also get a full ride somewhere else. Yeah, it probably won't be as good of a school, but hey, it's a full ride."</p>

<p>I dont' agree with this. It just doesn't seem right that a middle class student who gets into a school like NYU can't attend due to cost or lack of financial aid. This student may get a free-ride at a state school, but he/she might not want to go there. The state school may be good, but it might not be what the student wants. This student should be able to attend the presitgious school if he/she pleases.</p>

<p>"I don't like how you are talking about this subject as a matter of 'rights'. Look, nobody has the 'right' to attend any school, even if they get admitted to it. If you want to go to a school, you have to figure out how you're going to afford it. If that means going into debt, then so be it. If you're not willing to do that, then don't go."</p>

<p>If you're admitted to a school, you have the right to attend it. If you didn't, you wouldn't have been accepted. Money shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is w/college. It is though and unfortunately, it's the middle class studenst who usually end up paying full freight, even if they can't afford it.</p>

<p>"Let's not romanticize the life of the poor."</p>

<p>I'm not. Being poor (to put it bluntly) sucks. Many poor students don't go to college for reasons that you stated. However, more and more students, including the poor, are going to college. Many of these poor students receive large financial aid packages, packages that the middle class doesn't receive.</p>

<p>All colleges do not offer merit money -- some just need base aid.</p>