@Chembiodad I read the article, but like many NYT’s articles opinions, I don’t buy all of it. First, California is a complete mess - they are bankrupt, can’t afford their pension system, support a small nation of illegals, and are criminalizing “mis-pronouning” people in the process coining new words for ther collective lunacy. Many other state systems are shifting resources. In Wisconsin for example the Madison campus is a flagship campus with much higher selectivity than regional campuses. the regional campuses are all over the state and very affordable allowing students to live at home or live more cheaply in order to afford tuition which is highly subsidized. The article implies, without offering any solutions, that states should simply spend more money to subsidize colleges more. But it is the subsidization of college that is the primary driver of its inflation.
The OP was asking about NESCAC schools. My point, put more succinctly, is that they are all flagships of elitism almost by definition. Their “economic diversity” is token. I am not complaining about it because I think it is fine - nothing wrong with country clubs. The main reason relatively or truly poor people want to go to those schools is to more rapidly move up the socioeconomic ladder.
My comment about the downward economic drift at elite schools was meant to point out the obvious: the outcome of the student is more dependent on the student himself (zeself for Californians) than on presumed “privilege,”
If I were looking for down-to-earth students I would not look to NESCAC schools. Maybe University of Wisconsin Black River Falls.