Immigrants are self-selected as being among the most motivated people from their countries of origin.
Immigrants from many countries are selected by the immigration system for characteristics like being PhD students or skilled workers (for example, most immigrants from India and China have bachelor’s degrees, a far higher percentage than in India, China, or the US).
So it is no surprise that there are lots of immigrant success stories, and kids of these successful highly educated immigrants have a head start (nature, nurture, or both, depending on what you believe here) compared to most Americans.
Immigrants and their children are my best students for this reason. Always. They’re the ones who make the job worth doing. I’m close enough to the immigrant generation in my own family to understand why.
However, we’re now talking about a situation in which this multigenerational ladder for immigrants – which has been real for a long time, and a thing I’ve been a beneficiary of – isn’t so much there anymore. Has been pulled up by the very people on this site. The mechanism’s been simple: stop paying. Stop paying to support K12. Stop paying to support public universities. Stop paying to support public _______. And I’ve been here, old enough to pay attention to public affairs, to watch the whole thing happen.
What I see now – and it’s extremely painful to watch, both personally and as an American – is young and exceptionally able, willing, interested, interesting immigrants and children of immigrants aspiring and striving and finding door after door locked. Finding out too late that an opportunity existed, that doors they thought existed don’t, really. Having connections melt away. This country is supposed to reach out to them, now that they’re on the verge of getting their flyover flagship-granted PhDs – their PhDs! In practical subjects! And – you know, things are already sewn up, lot of the time, by the kids at the “go-to” colleges. And they were sewn up before these people applied for grad school.
What do you figure it’ll mean for their children? I can tell you what long American classboundness has meant for my poor first-gen students with families many generations deep here. It means they’ve learned not to try. That idiots try, fools work hard. That’s why they’re harder students to work with. They fight that message – they wouldn’t be in grad school if they didn’t – but you don’t lose something you’ve learned since birth that easily, especially when it also means divorcing yourself from the only family you have.
How many generations should a family have to hack away at it to get to where Generation 2 was in the last century?
As somebody who got into this country as an immigrant accepted to a graduate program in a subject that quite a lot of natives shun as being too difficult and non-glamorous, who got to borrow the price of my one-way ticket and would have been sent home with no way to return had I have two Bs in one semester, who knew a lot of vocabulary and grammar but did not really speak English, who had to figure a place to live two days before classes started, I find the complaints of the OP that their daughter did not get into an IVY school a little whiny.
Yes, the education here in a lot of places (starting with high school) is not good and it’s a shame that it is not free. But complaining that they did not get into a place accepting 3% of the applicants and their path to a society-defining job is closed – the same way I can spend my days being sorry that I am not born into the royal family. Life is not fair, but you do the best you can. There are plenty of non-society defining jobs that lead to a satisfying and meaningful professional life.
Fast forward 20+ years, my daughter was accepted to a couple of Ivies, and my son to Stanford. And the funny thing is that my daughter did not go to the Ivies, but chose to get an education abroad. We were fine with it, this was her adventure and her life. We believe she will be successful (in her own way) wherever she goes.
By EA and ED, I assume you mean early action and early decision. HYPSM type elites usually offer only one early option – either EA or ED, not both (Chicago is an exception). HYPS have a restricted early action. MIT and Caltech has a non-restricted early action. “Elite” privates that tend to lose cross admits to HYPSM tend to have a restricted ED, such as Penn, Brown, and Duke. The early round applicants and admits at such colleges tends to have a higher rate of wealthier kids than RD for a variety of reasons – legacies are more likely to apply early than average, athletes are more likely to apply early than average, kids who want to compare FA offers are more likely RD than average. However, the wealth differences between early and regular decision may not be as stark as you imagine.
For example, the Harvard internal report at http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-421-134-February-2013-Report.pdf list some specific numbers , which are repeated below. Note than categories associated with wealth only had a small 5-6% difference between the REA and RD pools. The larger difference occurred in the academic rating. There seem to be a more notably larger portion of kids who are academically well qualified in the REA pool than the RD pool.
*REA applicants are 6% less likely to have application fee waivers than RD
*REA applicants are 6% less likely to be first generation to attend college than RD
*REA applicants are 5% more likely to be legacies than RD
*REA applicants are 18% more likely to receive a high (1-2) or academic rating
The regression analysis found that applying early did offer an increased chance of admission among equally qualified applicants, but not as great as the admission boost for being SES disadvantaged (less than <$80k income). Some specific numbers are below. If an unhooked male White applicant with a particular set of ratings has a x% chance of admission, the regression analysis predicts his average chance of admission would change as follows with the following differences.
RD + Does not apply for FA: x% chance of admission
RD + Applies for FA: 1.5x chance of admission
REA + No FA: 4x chance of admission
RD + Flagged as lower SES (less than <$80k income) + Applied for FA: 7x chance of admission
RD + Legacy: 10x chance of admission
RD + Flagged as lower SES + Applied for FA + Application fee waiver: 14x chance of admission
RD + Double Legacy: 21x chance of admission
RD + On Dean/Director’s Special Interest List – 25x chance of admission
Recruited Athlete (often pre-screened): >2000x chance of admission
Looking at the actual admission decisions in the lawsuit sample, the SES disadvantaged kids (less than ~$80k income) had a higher admit rate when the applied REA than when they applied RD, and a good portion did apply REA. 18% of admits were flagged as SES disadvantaged on the overall pool compared to ~22% of admits being flagged as SES disadvantaged in the RD pool.
Rather than look at analysis and the applicant pools, we can look at actual results from the current class of 2025 decisions at many colleges. Some examples are below. Dartmouth had more Pell eligible kids in ED than RD, which is the reverse of expectations. However, Harvard and Penn had more Pell eligible in RD than early as expected. In all cases, they admitted lower income Pell eligible kids in both EA/ED and RD. I don’t see support for any of the claims in the quoted post.
Dartmouth Class of 2025
ED Admits --18% Pell eligible
Overall Admits – 17.2% Pell eligible
Harvard Class of 2025
REA Admits --14.5% Pell eligible
Overall Admits – 20.4% Pell eligible
Penn Class of 2025
ED – >13% Pell eligible
Overall Admits – >18% Pell eligible
20 years ago, 50 years ago, this country was a different place, with far broader opportunities for those who had come through rather ordinary schools. That opportunity is the meaningful item. And that is the point I am making throughout this thread.
I see the people who were born when you began your career. Their America is a different America in the ways I’ve been describing. It is important that, as an immigrant, you understand that, so that you don’t mislead the new arrivals looking to you for advice.
That’s a hard perspective for anyone to acquire. I had to get a slap across the face in order to see it, but I no longer regale students with tales of my undergraduate adventures. It isn’t fair. They haven’t any chance of anything like that – not just of my specific kind of fun, but of fun and freedom from dread, watching the debt mount daily, not knowing how or whether they’ll pay it off. They don’t have the opportunity to wander around finding the thing they’re interested in. So I just keep my mouth shut about it around them unless they ask, and then I’m careful to say that I know it was a very different time, and that we had enormous advantages that few kids have today.
In 20 years, I’ve watched the institution where I work transform. At first I thought it was just this place; eventually it became clear that no, this was happening all over the country. Little in the transformation has been positive or helpful to the students. When it’s not a matter of this school, or that school, but most schools, then you have to look at what a student’s real odds are when they don’t come equipped with loads of cash and family privilege networks, and how those are changing over time, and why.
@data10, are you aware of how a family has to be living before they’re Pell-eligible? Like do you have a day-to-day sense of what that’s meant over the past several years, and what the distance is between that and “rich” in the top-quintile sense?
Hey folks, I’ve been spending too much time on this thread: I have a choice between educating a lot of rich parents and educating a lot of poor kids, and I’m picking the kids. Papers to grade, lessons to plan, students to reach out to.
I suggest you take a hard look at that Dream Hoarders book, which will cover a lot of this ground if less knowledgeably, and be rather more honest with yourselves about why you’re on this site and how that plays with the debates that have been going on here.
Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts. I found them intelligently written with a lot of good points, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions maybe because my reality is different than yours. The inequality in this country is surely a big problem.
Yes, the US has inequality. Here’s the thing: those decently bright and driven (but not insanely bright/driven) richer kids who get in to Ivies/equivalents aren’t getting in to the elite industries (or lasting there if they do) or becoming top societal decision-makers either.
Builds character. Yes, some people fold, but as with any challenge, it’s all about how you respond to it. Look, I don’t know your background, and it’s still not a true meritocracy everywhere, but I’ve worked in many different places, and in results-oriented industries, it’s all about results. The folks who had to scrape and fight just to get to the starting line don’t tend to do worse in those types of environments.
In your earlier post, you mentioned ““rich” in the top-quintile sense”. If we use a top quintile definition, then it’s not just “elites” that a very large portion of rich kids. Some examples from the Chetty/NYT study (based on tax records, older sample) that was linked earlier are below. All of the following colleges are majority “rich” kids by this definition, including most highly selective publics, as well as many publics that are not highly selective.
Harvard – 67% from top quintile income
Stanford – 66% from top quintile income
University of Michigan – 66% from top quintile income
MIT – 61% from top quintile income
University of Iowa – 60% from top quintile income
University of Oregon – 56% from top quintile income
Purdue – 54% from top quintile income
University of Mississippi – 53% from quintile income
Cal State Chico – 53% from quintile income
North Carolina State – 51% from top quintile income
Florida State – 51% from top quintile income
Even if you drop down in selective to directional state type publics that admit the overwhelming majority of applicants, you still often get a large portion of “rich” kids in top quintile income. Some specific numbers are below:
Central Connecticut State – 45% from top quintile income
North Florida – 43% from top quintile income
Northern Colorado (91% admit rate) – 42% from top quintile income
North Georgia (82% admit rate) – 41% from top quintile income
With the large portion of rich kids at both highly selective publics and a good portion of less selective publics, there are clearly other factors involved than just “exquisite and expensive prep, including social prep, before applying.” I think the biggest driving force is who applies to the college, not who the college admits. As previously noted, Harvard has a similar admit rate for both low income kids and high income kids. The difference is the vast majority of Harvard’s application pool is composed of high income kids. Very few truly low income kids apply to Harvard or other “elite” privates.
Some of that relates to higher income kids being more likely to feel they are qualified for “elite” privates than lower income kids, with test scores in comparable ranges in such. And some of it is higher income kids being more likely to be in communities in which kids are pushed to apply to “elite” privates, which may be located thousands of miles away from home. For example, the study at https://www.nber.org/papers/w18586 divides high achieving lower income kids into income typical and achievement typical groups. Income typical high achievers do not apply to any selective colleges (often do not apply to any 4 years), while achievement typical often apply to “reach” colleges with similar or higher test scores to their own. High stat kids who attend magents or are a part of group in which peers apply to reaches tend to also apply to reaches. High stat kids who attend HSs where few apply to selective colleges also tend to apply to non-selective colleges.
The not feeling/being qualified due to test scores or other markers of selectivity reason also applies to more selective publics, and fits with why the more selective publics are mostly composed of “rich” kids. The latter (pressure from parents/peers/GCs/community) is also relevant to publics and contribute to why some less selective publics have much larger portions form top quintile incomes than others. Truly lower income kids tend to favor more local colleges, if they attend a 4 year, so the colleges with relatively larger portion from truly lower income and less from “rich” kids tend be located near urban or other areas with a good portion of not rich kids. Some examples are below:
Chicago State – 5% in top quintile, 27% in bottom qunitile
CUNY York – 7% in top quintile, 25% in bottom qunitile
U of El Paso – 11% in top quintile, 24% in bottom qunitile
Cal State LA – 12% in top quintile, 22% in bottom qunitile
I second this, BTW. I’m not nearly as defeatist as you (the OP), because I see what opportunities there are in this country. Maybe your kids should read “Can’t Hurt Me” by David Goggins. But I appreciate what you have shared. The inequality and economics that have led to the breakdown of family structure in the working class is a big problem that the US has to tackle.
This thread is focused on “elite” private colleges. “Elite” private colleges tend to be need blind for domestic applicants, meaning that admissions officers do not see FA information or parents’ income. This includes all Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin… the overwhelming majority of colleges in the US that are typically considered “elite” privates on this forum.
However, it’s been noted that some need blind “elites” do use the remaining information in the docket to estimate who is likely to be lower SES, and use that to give a boost to the small portion of kids who are truly lower SES among the applicant pool, such as Harvard. Many “elite” private colleges also give a boost to groups that are well correlated with lower income such as first gen or URM.
I think the direct admission advantage that some higher income kids have at “elite” privates more typically relates to being a part of ALDC type hook groups, which is well correlated with higher income. A key one is legacies. Legacies get a strong advantage at many “elite” colleges and legacy applicants tend to be very high income. Another one that is often ignored is is athletes. Recruited athletes often get a huge admission advantage at D1 colleges, and athletes can compose a large portion of admits at smaller D3 colleges. Recruited athletes tend to be high income, and “elite” colleges often have recruited athletes in less popular sports that are not commonly played among lower income kids . For example, the Amherst report at https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/PlaceOfAthleticsAtAmherst_Secure_1.pdf mentions that a large 30% of students are varsity athletes. It also mentions that only 4% of varsity athletes were low income compared to 31% of non-athletes. There are also less direct advantages to being higher income, such as often attending higher quality primary/secondary schools.
The ones who do not get a direct admissions boost are the typical applicant – not ALDC hooked, not URM, not first gen, not lower income, … Most of these typical unhooked applicant are well above average income, what many would call higher income. Being such a large of applicants, they also compose a large portion of admits, even without obvious admission boost.
I think this is a good point. A lot of kids from our LPS (in MA) apply to “elite” schools because 1. they know about them 2. their parents are often alumni 3. the school encourages looking at these schools. As a result, around 20-25 kids go to T20 each year (usually 5-10 Ivy+) and another 10-15 attend top 20 LACs. That doesn’t even take into account the numerous kids who attend schools like Northeastern, BU or BC each year. We are a fairly affluent town but not a top 20 school district and I think the results here are similar to that of many good pubic high schools in MA. Part of this is undoubtedly cultural - MA is the most well-educated state in the country and people are generally aware of elite schools - especially since so many are located in New England.
Based on plugging in hypotheticals into FAFSA4caster, Pell grant eligibility approximates the bottom 40-50% of household income in the US. Note: this includes eligibility for Pell grants lower than the maximum Pell grant.
Note that CSU Chico is in a smaller city in an otherwise sparsely populated area, so a large portion of “local area” students are out of reasonable commute range and must attend (more expensively) as residential students. In addition, it attracts some students from other parts of the state looking to “go away to college”. In contrast, CSULA is in a large urban area where most students can attend (more affordably) as commuters. So it should not be too surprising that the parental income profiles of the students at these two CSUs differs.
Much of the change OP complains about is due to how ubiquitous college attendance has become. Of course the students attending the state school are poorer and less prepared than they were many years ago; far more of the local high school students are attending. With an 80% admission rate, her college serves as an extension of secondary education, with all that entails. Whether it would be better to have more rigorous admissions ( and courses) and steer other students to community college or trade schools is another question.
Bennty, I wish you would write a blog! I’m thoroughly enjoying and agreeing with your posts. As an immigrant, going through this process for the 3rd time, the inequity is incredibly upsetting to me. My bright, high stats kiddo #3, who went to an elite prep school on a substantial scholarship, is finding that her options are quite limited. The athletes all had their Ivy spots secured well before Oct, while the ED group had theirs more or less sorted by mid Jan. Very few kids were waiting for Ivy Day, even fewer were waiting for fin aid packages. We have been on many more waitlists ( yield protection?) and her stats and rigor, which is much better than her siblings, seems to be working against her. I am disappointed about her options after all of her hard work, and I don’t want to be told that State U is a wonderful option. I also work in higher ed and I know which employers come calling.