How Wealthy are Students at Prestige Colleges?

Parents Forum
1

<p>Tom Mortenson at Post-Secondary Opportunities, and one of the leading researchers in college affordability in the U.S., recently posted the following on his blog:</p>

<p>"It is no secret that higher education is divided along class lines. We recently calculated median parental income for dependent undergraduate students by institutional sector from the 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. There results were:</p>

<p>Private 4-year colleges and universities: $67,534
Public 4-year colleges and universities: $63,888
Public 2-year colleges: $53,010"</p>

<p>When I read it, it made me sit up and take notice. Currently, and with some wiggle room, for a student to receive no need-based aid, family income has to be around a minimum of $160k/year. If you took the so-called top 20 LACs and 20 private unis and combined the data, you'd find that around 50% of student bodies receive no need-based aid. (There are schools where that percentage is closer to 40%, so the median income would be higher.) So, assuming the midpoint to be $160k, the median family income of students at these prestige schools is roughly 2 1/2 times that of the students at public or private 4-year colleges generally speaking. (There are schools where that percentage of those receiviing no need-based aid is closer to 60%, so the median income would be even higher.) Other estimates I have seen of asset formation suggest that assets for the median student family at $160k is roughly 4-5X that of the median American family. </p>

<p>I think it worth quoting his conclusion in full, so you can have fun with him as a punching bag:</p>

<p>"What is happening is that under regressive federal, state and institutional policies adopted beginning about 1980 higher education enrollments are being resorted along social class lines. Our 4-year colleges and universities are increasingly reserved for white children born into affluence, while our community colleges and proprietary schools are increasingly populated by minorities and the poor.</p>

<p>Different sectors of higher education produce different outcomes for the students they enroll. Thus this increasingly class-segregated and class-segregating performance of higher education deserves critical scrutiny. Is the purpose of higher education to secure the futures mainly of those born into affluence and to relegate to less prosperous lifetime paths those born into families with lower incomes? What messages do these policies and practices convey about our commitment to diversity? To community? To social harmony? To social and economic vitality? To democracy? To prosperity?</p>

<p>My view is that the policy choices that we made between 1862 (first Morrill Act) and about 1980 were consistently progressive, expansive and inclusive. Since about 1980 our federal, state and 4-year institution policy choices have been consistently regressive, constrictive and exclusive. The enrollment consequences of these regressive policy choices were predictable by anyone with a modicum of social science familiarity. We have deliberately chosen to protect a status quo that assures the best and most expensive higher education for those born into affluence and provides other postsecondary opportunities to the growing share of the rest of us who were born into less fortunate circumstances. Ultimately these regressive policy choices weaken and divide us, and offer a far dimmer future for the United States than what the progressive policies of the past produced."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.postsecondary.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.postsecondary.org&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I guess where I part company with him (call me a cynic if you will) is that I see the policies of, and education offered by these undergraduate institutions (and I attended two, and my d. attends one) as increasingly irrelevant to both the educational and economic life of the nation, something I'm sure I wouldn't have argued 50-60 years ago. If they disappeared from the undergraduate education equation in the nation tomorrow, other than in the lack of status objects, would it really make that much difference?</p>

2

<p>Mini-- if you spent as much time hollering about the %^&* high schools that low and moderate income kids have to contend with as you do about the elite universities (which educate a fraction of our population) you would have more crediblity with me when you get on your soap box.</p>

<p>And did you tell your daughter not to apply to elite colleges given the preponderance of the affluent she'd find there? Is her education any less valuable to her just because she's not paying full freight, thanks to several generations of affluent alum's and courtesy of the taxpayers?</p>

3

<p>Actually, that's just my point - the educational and economic life of the country is determined by what is happening in schools attended by low- and moderate-income children, and, then later, what is happening at public colleges and universities, not what is going on at prestige colleges, which are increasingly irrelevant to the equation.</p>

4

<p>Mini, yesterday the Seattle Times had a large article on average school spending in states around the US. NJ was the highest at nearly twice Washington. Are their results any better. I saw Utah was the lowest and it has very good results.</p>

5

<p>"Currently, and with some wiggle room, for a student to receive no need-based aid, family income has to be around a minimum of $160k/year."</p>

<p>Not true.</p>

6

<p>Well, I've been kind of curious about the wealth ds will see around him at one of the Ivy League schools. We have 5 children (hence my name), ds drives a 12 year old minivan and his high school allowance was a whopping $10 a week, plus we paid the gas and insurance. (he washed dishes a couple days a month at a local restaurant to supplement). He already says he has the least amount of spending money of any of his friends. I haven't worried about it too much. :-P Dh and I never were provided a car or gas money by our parents. I've already told him the ony way we will provide spending money at the university will be if he is doing unpaid work that furthers his career goals. I figure there will be kids around who will never have to worry about the funds. Ours will and it won't hurt him. ;-)</p>

<p>We will receive need based aid and our income is below the $160,000 mark by a good margin. It's still a good income for our area and we can only afford to pay our share by living below our income, a policy we have followed for years. </p>

<p>momoffive</p>

7

<p>Yeah the $160k figure isn't true by a long shot.
And I guess those median figures could be mostly right. I remember reading somewhere that the mean average income for student's families at UCLA was $110k.</p>

8

<p>there must be more independent students going to school than i had imagined. either that or the median income numbers in the original post are adjusted. why? the median family income with an adult over 40 in this country is over $65000. as such, the data posted above would indicate that family income has no effect on ones likelihood to attend college, which we all know is not true.</p>

9

<p>Someone has selected their numbers to make a point. I can't figure out what the point is, but the numbers don't make sense. First median, 4-person family incomes are now over $70k in many States and are over $90k in many of the more expensive counties. In my area, school teachers and police are paid $80-$100k and there are plenty of 2-income families which surpass your $160k figure. These are average working families, doing well, but not born to wealth. I am not sure where you got your $160k figure. I make much less, don't have many assets and qualify for no assistance.</p>

<p>Clearly, the selectivity of elite colleges is very high. These schools are not irrelevant playgrounds for the idle rich. Sure there might be a very small number of admissions based on celebrity status or to please an extremely wealthy donor, but I think those cases are very small and irrelevant. So how can it be that schools that educate thousands of the nation's brightest and most accomplished students are irrelevant and don't make much difference? We can be unhappy about the high costs of education and we can decide those costs are not within our reach or worth the sacrifice, but it is absurd to then conclude these schools make no difference in education.</p>

10

<p>mini:
Ah, you've touched a nerve. Most people just DO NOT want to believe any of that is true.</p>

<p>I disagree slightly with your assessment of the relative importance to the economy of the nation of the expensive schools in question. Look at where our federal government has been educated. Then look at the economic ramifications of that.</p>

11

<br>


<br>

<p>How do you figure that at schools where a smaller fraction of the students are paying full freight, the median income of the student body is higher? Sounds backwards to me.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Currently, and with some wiggle room, for a student to receive no need-based aid, family income has to be around a minimum of $160k/year.

[/quote]

Not true here either. (I only wish!)</p>

13

<p>

I think Mini was comparing hypothetical colleges where 50% of the students don't receive need-based aid vs. colleges where 40% of the students don't receive aid. If you have the same overall median income at both colleges, then the median income for those students/families who don't receive aid must be higher at the 40% college than at the 50% college.</p>

14

<p>This has been bugging me a lot lately, as we try to figure out where my jr son will apply to college. We want him to go to a "good" school, probably a LAC with the advantages of small class size and good facilities. But so many of the colleges that our local kids go to seem to be bastions of the wealthy white elite. The public hs has a nice cross section, but then the kids get very stratified as they go off to college. And to make things worse, the local elite preppy private schools send their kids to these colleges too! We stayed away from "them" during secondary school, why must we now join them in college and leave the others behind? Anyway, please prepare for my future thread, "looking for a high quality LAC that is not dominated by rich white preppy kids."</p>

15

<p>Grinnell, Oberlin, Carleton. The Midwest scares away the "elite".</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
Anyway, please prepare for my future thread, "looking for a high quality LAC that is not dominated by rich white preppy kids."

[/quote]
Well, you can get away from "preppy" but almost any private LAC is going to to be filled with mostly white kids from affluent families. You might want to check into the public LAC's... but those are a rare commodity and of course quality varies - see: <a href="http://www.coplac.org/members.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.coplac.org/members.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The two factors at work are the cost of the college plus the fact that LAC's tend not to emphasize pre-professional or career-oriented programs. Kids from low income families are more likely to value flexibility in scheduling (ability to attend part time or to commute, or to take a semester off here and there to work) and for career-preparation as well as relative affordability. Aside from the tuition, it is a big luxury for many families for a potential income-earner to spend 4 years living away from home studying who knows what, only to emerge without clear and certain job prospects.</p>

17

<p>NJRes--Wesleyan. Mostly white, like most of the LACs, many rich, some from prep schools. But letting on you have money, or acting preppy, are frowned upon.</p>

<p>My D says that all the stuff her circle did was always planned to be affordable for all. Though a public school grad, she never felt any superiority from the prep school kids.</p>

<p>(This is a school where duct tape is a fashion statement).</p>

18

<p>NJres said:
[quote]
This has been bugging me a lot lately, as we try to figure out where my jr son will apply to college. We want him to go to a "good" school, probably a LAC with the advantages of small class size and good facilities. But so many of the colleges that our local kids go to seem to be bastions of the wealthy white elite. The public hs has a nice cross section, but then the kids get very stratified as they go off to college. And to make things worse, the local elite preppy private schools send their kids to these colleges too! We stayed away from "them" during secondary school, why must we now join them in college and leave the others behind? Anyway, please prepare for my future thread, "looking for a high quality LAC that is not dominated by rich white preppy kids."

[/quote]

Try this:</p>

<p>This has been bugging me a lot lately, as we try to figure out where my jr son will apply to college. We want him to go to a "good" school, probably a LAC with the advantages of small class size and good facilities. But so many of the colleges that our local kids go to seem to be bastions of **the multi-race underclass. The public hs has a nice cross section, but then the kids get very stratified as they go off to college. And to make things worse, the local **inner city schools* send their kids to these colleges too! We stayed away from "them" during secondary school, why must we now join them in college and leave the others behind? Anyway, please prepare for my future thread, "looking for a high quality LAC that is not dominated by the multicultural underclass.*</p>

<p>To further make the point, try inserting "rich Jews" instead of your rich white preppy nonsense.</p>

<p>Sorry to go Coulter on you, NJ, but your post is the kind that makes me shake my head at the depth and breadth of the unexamined ignorance and (ironically) sanctimonious bigotry that all too often pervades this place. What is it that bugs you? White kids? Rich kids? White kids who don't wear dreads and listen to rap? Do rich black kids bug you? Rich Asian kids? You've delineated a very narrow, shallow path for your kid's college search. Maybe you should look for colleges in Bangladesh.</p>

19

<p>Driver, you definitely have a point! But I also understand the desire to send one's kid to a place that has a diverse group of students, including diverse economically. Anyhooo. Let me react to an earlier point...
[quote]
think Mini was comparing hypothetical colleges where 50% of the students don't receive need-based aid vs. colleges where 40% of the students don't receive aid. If you have the same overall median income at both colleges, then the median income for those students/families who don't receive aid must be higher at the 40% college than at the 50% college.

[/quote]
This assumes that costs at the schools are similar. Grinnell, Trinity U, and Rice U cost significantly less than many other schools of their stature. A number of families would qualify for needbased aid at Stanford, NYU, etc (since they cost 9-10,000 more) but not qualify for needbased aid at Grinnell, Trinity, Rice, etc. since they cost less. Having a lower percentage of students qualify for needbased aid does not mean that the school has more wealthy students compared to other schools - unless you are also accounting for the cost of attendance</p>

20

<p>NJRes:
You don't have to go to Bangladesh. Come to California.</p>

<p>I suggest you look at Occidental College in Los Angeles. (<a href="http://www.oxy.edu%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.oxy.edu&lt;/a&gt;)
It's small, with a close-knit community feel, excellent UG teaching and programs. And it's L.A. You want diversity, you got diversity. Seriously, the college makes an effort to attract qualified students from low-income neighborhoods in the area. It's still predominantly white, but you will definitely find economic diversity and a multi-cultural student body.</p>