<p>If you had to pick between these two methods for increasing economic diversity in higher education which would you pick?</p>
<p>One without the other is kind of a waste of time. No point in accepting students who can't afford to attend. No point in making it affordable if you aren't sending any acceptance letters.</p>
<p>"No point in accepting students who can't afford to attend."</p>
<p>And since this happens so much more than being rejected by colleges because of modest income, I vote for much more need-based aid, with federal subsidies across the board for private secular U's who don't have the funds to meet full aid but who are prepared to accept accomplished, capable students with demonstrated need for full aid. Heck, if you want to throw in federally supported merit-aid/gap aid, fine with me as well. I'm for economically diversifying private U's of all types. (Not all the wealthy students are concentrated in the top 25, btw. Some of the least economically diverse institutions are mid-tier ones populated homogeneously by the fashion-conscious & sports-car crowd.)</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>The reason for that is that state flagship U's, especially their honors programs, are a much better educational deal than full price mid to lower end private U or college.</p>
<p>I am a huge fan of grants for 100% of need at high end institutions. For the same reason I detest the legacy preference in admissions. I oppose granting low income students preferences in admission for the same reason a legacy grad rarely mentions in his job interview that he was a legacy, it undermines the value of the credential.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some of the least economically diverse institutions are mid-tier ones populated homogeneously by the fashion-conscious & sports-car crowd.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. There's a bit of a knee in the curve. The schools with the largest per student endowments actually charge less net tuition than those slightly below that need to maximize student revenues and charge higher net prices. Go a little further down the curve and you get to colleges that simply can't charge as much.</p>
<p>There's a school of thought that says the very top schools will ultimately go the grad school route and pay students to attend. That would be horrible news for low income students because it would eliminate the progressive pricing in today's system where wealthy customers subsidize lower income students.</p>
<p>If schools truly want to attract low income students, it takes a lot more than either one of those tactics. It takes reaching down into the high schools and helping with so many of the obstacles these kids have for college admissions.</p>
<p>For instance, most do not have regular internet access, and how much college process is via email or on line this and that? The digital divide is alive and well, believe me.</p>
<p>Many have parents who, for one reason or another, are terribly frightened or skeptical of revealing to the government details that are required on the FAFSA for instance.</p>
<p>Many do not have parent advocates - no one to help them AT ALL through the system. Ditto for guidance counseling. It's a lot of red tape for a struggling kid to understand alone.</p>
<p>Many can not fathom traveling to a distant place (much less a small town in the middle of nowhere populated by nearly all white kids). They can not even scrape together the money to visit, much less get back and forth for four years.</p>
<p>Many feel like they would be severely "outgunned" in college, due to their relatively poor high school backgrounds (lack of APs, etc.). And. sadly, they might be right about that.</p>
<p>These, and other, obstacles "force" many qualified, smart, and hard working low income kids into their community college, because community colleges are used to dealing with these issues. </p>
<p>It's very tough out there for a kid who has NO money and who is essentially all alone in the process.</p>
<p>I think reply #4 is non-responsive. That's not what the question asked.</p>
<p>I'll admit, that as a low-income student from a underserved school that I feel out-gunned, but only academically. But being able to get to into that top university and top LAC just proves that I more than make up for that weakness with something more important--drive. No, my transcript isn't littered with AP's and Honor classes but I managed to teach myself what I needed to know to get my foot in the door. That same vigor will allow me to succeed in college,too. And at least now my peers and I will have the same resources--no more competition with students that have laboratories at their school while mine doesn't have even have a library!</p>
<p>I wanted to go to a community college after high school. The majority of last year's graduating are attending one. Most of them found the low ranking public universities too difficult. I wanted to avoid to avoid wasting money on a four year institution--I would just flunk out anyway. But now, community college isn't viable. My top two choices are about $2,200 in loans a year, after grants, scholarships, etc., full need met. Who can turn that down? </p>
<p>The college process for students without support is tough but not impossible. Besides, we're suited for college in one way--we don't expect hand-holding once we get there.</p>
<p>Also, the students that have the toughest time at universities are the ones that are admitted with very low stats and very little initiative. It doesn't take much to get a 4.0 at my school. But it's nearly impossible to get a decent standardized test score(above a 20 ACT or 1500 SAT). A few students were admitted to the flagship university with standardized test scores in the mid 50th and even low 30th percentile--the university wasn't doing them a favor.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>"(Not all the wealthy students are concentrated in the top 25, btw. Some of the least economically diverse institutions are mid-tier ones populated homogeneously by the fashion-conscious & sports-car crowd.)</p>
<p>This is what I was responding to.</p>
<p>Alchemy:
[quote]
Besides, we're suited for college in one way--we don't expect hand-holding once we get there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And there in lies the critical key for the kids who will succeed in spite of the odds. Very good point!</p>
<p>"Higher need based aid or admissions preferences based on low income?"</p>
<p>Yes!</p>
<p>I oppose granting low income students preferences in admission for the same reason a legacy grad rarely mentions in his job interview that he was a legacy</p>
<p>let me see if I can restate this opinion.
Because job seekers- aren't going to detail their circumstances upon applying to college</p>
<p>such as: They didn't ask for aid at an expensive school- or reminded the adcoms that their family has contributed big bucks in the past and would like to continue to do so.</p>
<p>Or at the other end of the scale, the counselor mentioned that they were the only ones in their family with an income, as their single mother was disabled and their siblings were too young to work, still they kept up with their schoolwork.</p>
<p>IMO, those are factors that are relevant to admission committees & I agree their status upon entering college, is not as relevant to hiring committees, as their work and accomplishments at graduation.
However, it might come up in an interview.</p>
<p>But I don't quite understand that logic that says- * because* these things aren't routinely mentioned in job applications- they shouldn't be mentioned in college apps.</p>
<p>They are relevant and I think they should be mentioned- they add something to round out the knowledge of the candidate.</p>
<p>I also happen to think that they can give more depth to a job interview concerning college performance, but I also think that work experience, is usually more applicable.</p>
<p>Green cat,</p>
<p>The point is that, if they start to routinely give preference for low income status in admissions, admissions to elite colleges and universties will be a less effective vehicle for social mobility. This is true because once folks find out that you came from a low income background they will discount the fact that you were admitted to that insitution. Financial aid does not carry this stigma since it says much more about your parents than it does about you.</p>
<p>Re Post 10:
But I wasn't referring to publics. I was referring to mid-tier privates populated by mostly wealthy students & interested in hanging out with like-minded, like-background folks.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>So here's how it goes. The smart financially constrained students decide to attend State Flagship U's honors program rather than paying through the nose for a mid-tier private institution that is academically inferior to the public institution's honors program. As a result these mid-tier institutions have less smart low income people at them than do more prestigious institiutions. These mid-tier instituions tend to be populated by students who don't want to attend a public institution and/or couldn't qualify for admissions to the honors program. I'm not so much disagreeing with you, as explaining why it happens. OK?</p>
<p>curious,
To me the explanation is obvious & not necessary even to mention. Of course that segment in the mid-tier private can't make it into the top-tier. In some cases, they're probably also not that interested in working hard to remain enrolled in a demanding top tier, should they qualify for admission. Way more interested in the social atmosphere being the most important element. That is opposed to more diverse <em>private</em> institutions even. (Never mind the more diverse publics.)</p>
<p>admissions to elite colleges and universties will be a less effective vehicle for social mobility.</p>
<p>I guess I don't understand the "social mobility" thing</p>
<p>I thought they were attending those schools for an education- they still are going to be hindered in "social mobility" somewhat, despite their education, because of the lack of their parents connections and background.</p>
<p>If my D got a small boost entering Reed, , are you saying that because she managed to graduate from Reed, people are going to discount that she was even able to attend because her parents don't have college degrees?</p>
<p>So I assume you are against AA as well?</p>
<p>The "social mobility thing" as you call it is the only reason why I, and most of the general population, support things like government aid to education, such as the Pell Grants. No one is fooled by this nonsense about diversity of views. My views have nothing to do with my socio-economic background, despite what Karl Marx thinks. "Diversity" became the defense of AA when it became clear that it was indefensible constitutionally unless somehow it could be argued that it benefited the universities rather than just the recipients. </p>
<p>I'm not opposed to AA. I just realize, as does everyone else (except liberals) including the recipients, that it doesn't help the recipients as much as liberals think it does.</p>
<p>Right now it is exceptional for colleges to grant a preference for first generation college students. When, and if, it becomes commonplace to grant such a preference, it will degrade the value of the degree for first generation students. If we really have the interest of these kids at heart we would focus all of our efforts into making sure that those who get in on their own merits can afford to go.</p>