We attended a woman’s non-revenue sporting event at a top 20 academic school. The players on both teams were introduced, and 90%+ were communications/advertising majors. It seemed a bit of a waste to get to that level of school and then be funneled into that kind of major.
^ Yes, it’s possible to see that at schools that are not Ivies/equivalents.
At Ivies/equivalents, pretty much everybody is not only academically qualified but also likely has a hook and/or is stellar and far beyond peers in some or multiple ways.
There have been a lot of posts about rich students getting into college because they are “better prepared” and poorer students can’t handle the rigor. I think the statistics prove this argument is false or at least doesn’t include the whole picture.
At UCLA, the average income is $104,000 and the majority of students are not in the top 20% of the income bracket. At WUSTL, the average income is $272,000, 84% come from the top 20% and 22% are from the top 1%. There are a good chunk of schools like WUSTL if you read the article.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-los-angeles
UCLA is a better school than WUSTL. Why doesn’t UCLA have trouble finding academically excellent students that aren’t all wealthy? Average family income is $104,000. I doubt very much those students had expensive private tutors, top private school, camps, etc.
^ 1. Apples and oranges Tuition, room and board is less than $30,000 for in state kids at UCLA. WUSTL costs over time that.
- Who says UCLA is better than WUSTL? USNWR ranks WUSTL at # 19, UCLA at #24.
- I don't think the real dichotomy is between the families earning $104,000 and $272,000. It's between the families earning $30,000 and those earning $272,000.
@Sue22 The comparison refutes the notion that you can’t find students that excel that aren’t in the top of the income bracket.
@Sue22 Also USNWR does its own little thing, and it isn’t necessarily the gold standard for ranks. If you look at any global ranking, UCLA is ranked a lot better.
It is true that UCLA and WUStL are at extreme ends of the list of the USNWR top 25 sorted by percentage of students on Pell grants (UCLA 38%, WUStL 8%). However, most others in the list are closer to WUStL than UCLA in this respect. Columbia and USC are the private ones with the highest percentage of students on Pell grants (31% and 24% respectively).
Of course, admission criteria and processes can affect which of the highly academically qualified applicants are admitted and can enroll. Non-consideration of legacy, not using CSS Profile, taking many transfer students, and being impressed by essays about overcoming adversity are likely to tip the admit and matriculant pool toward including more students from lower SES families, compared to typical highly selective college admission criteria and processes.
Family and parent incomes can be gamed, just like class rankings. If you own a small business, you can show colleges you make 60K when you make a lot more than that. There is even a cottage industry that helps families hide income so they get more financial aid.
Not everyone games the system like that, but a lot do, enough where you shouldn’t believe everything you read. And what was that statement about averages - they hide more than they reveal.
In actuality, one is penalized for owning a small business when calculating need based financial aid.
@austinmshauri I must have explained my point poorly if I gave the impression that I think we should not spend money on the less fortunate but I do think money is not spent very wisely. I simply think that many kids have incredible achievements and it is too easy to say it was only due to their privilege. There is still a large effort involved in their accomplishments. In our area, there are two school districts and it seems they compete to see which district can provide smart boards to all classrooms, provide computers to all, Rosetta Stone, etc. All of these can be fine tools but from what I have seen are not a great use of money given how they are used.
Definitely I am using anecdotal experiences from a smallish area in the South but to your comments the schools are certainly not great but many do not want to admit that so they do not get better (but we do have some great sports programs…). Clearly I do not know every families thoughts on education but I know quite a few families and am very aware of their priorities.
Re my son’s successes, I would not say he has achieved anything spectacular but he really likes math so we have supported it. He would not have the knowledge he has without the programs. We also support sports, cultural experiences and various other academic pursuits. He is just as happy learning how to use Python as he is playing in a soccer/tennis tournament so we pursue both. Once again, I am very supportive of providing many opportunities to everyone who cares to use them but from my small community I have not seen many that are willing to put in the efforts.
Still, there is enough individual variation that automatically assuming that the kids of poor and lower middle income families are not college ready and therefore unsuitable for admission to college means wasting an enormous amount of potential talent, as well as sending the message that there is no possibility of moving upward in SES – a recipe for various social and political nastiness in society.
Surely, many readers here know of cases where someone from a poor or lower middle income family goes to college, graduates on time, and gets a good job, while a peer or cousin or whatever from a wealthier family struggles in college, barely graduates after six or more years (or does not graduate), and gets a job only through family connections.
@ceilingroofgoat: Global rankings tend to be heavily if not solely research-focused, so they wouldn’t tell you much about the relative quality of the (American) undergraduate experience.
That said, you can quibble about whether UCLA or WashU is better, but it’s certainly no slam-dunk that UCLA is definitely better or harder to get in to (which was the crux of your argument) considering that, at the undergraduate level, WashU’s student body has higher test scores and a lower admit rate.
Please quit relying on NYT or other media, lol. I wonder how much we really know, as individuals, about K-12 in our areas and others. There often seems to be some almost mythological insistence that low SES means no opportunities, ever. Odd, considering most of us know our roots and family histories of surmounting and achieving.
I don’t know what personal that feeds. It seems to romanticize “us” as achievers and them waiting for Robin Hood.
Btw, “being impressed by essays about overcoming adversity.” How much do you know how - or whether - that is it? Again, if you looked at low SES kids as more than shadowy caricatures, you’d be surprised.
There is a real dichotomy between the families earning $104k and $272k, maybe even larger than the dichotomy between the families earning $104k and $30k. The $104k family can’t afford to spend $20k+/year on a private school for k-12. The $104k family isn’t going to be able to afford a house in the neighborhoods with the best public schools. The $104k family can’t spend $10k on a college consultant. The $104k family might be able to afford some spending on ECs, but not nearly as much as the $272k family. A 5-week lacrosse camp can run up to $7500.
Start with universal preschool and safe neighborhoods.
??? If the $104k family spends $20k on a private school they still earn 3x as much as the $30k family.
This is so geographically dependent. The $104k family in my area can do a nice house in the neighborhood with the best public schools, an private for a kid or two also. They certainly can spend $10k on a college consultant if they want to.
The $30k family is not likely to have much extra at all, but around here even that family can probably swing YMCA or rec sports team fees. Not the house in the nice school area or the private school though, and definitely not the college consultant.
The $104k family might have $80k after tax. If they paid $20k/kid and had two kids, that would leave them $40k after-tax, after-tuition income. Then, the $30k family might qualify for free or reduced school lunches or the earned income tax credit.
@roethlisburger So they’d have $10K to spend on school lunches, you’re saying?
It looks like the maximum EITC is $5,572. $2.5/day2 kids180 days = $900. Then, a family only earning $30k/year may qualify for low income housing. This whole tangent misses the bigger point anyway. Just because it’s theoretically possible for a family earning $104k/year to pay for private school doesn’t mean many families will do so. I’m sure I could craft a hypothetical budget where the $104k family could buy a Ferrari too, but you’ll see approximately 0% of families at that income level with Ferraris or equivalent luxury vehicles.
@OHMomof2 I’m sorry if you find this rude, but if you think a family earning $104K per year can spend $10K on a college consultant, you have absolutely no concept of reality.