<p>I saw a publicly viewable link </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/features/45_pellgrant.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.jbhe.com/features/45_pellgrant.html</a> </p>
<p>from the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education that reminded me of something that Mini posted recently, but I couldn't remember if Mini's source was the same publication. The article is interesting, as are most articles from that publication.</p>
<p>An education is there for anyone who seeks it. It is not the responsibility of a private college or otherwise to provide an education to the poor . Why berate and admonish an institution concerning this? What I mean is, it seems some are critical of Ivy's and some LAC's for not admitting more poor students. Who they admit is their business. Anyone poor can get a college education. I don't understand all the criticism. Furthermore, some ivy colleges have worldwide reputations.It is more their responsibility in my opinion to admit a diverse world population in order to expose the wealthy of different countries to the American philosophy of education. If these upper strata colleges have a mission at all, I would consider that their mission.</p>
<p>Thanks
I don't remember if Mini used this source either, although I remember him quoting Reeds Pell grant numbers and this journal doesn't cite Reed.
Since I volunteer at my daughters high school in the college counseling office, this information will be useful to aid students in selecting colleges ; for low income students & anyone who is looking for an institution that is interested in economic diversity.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, poverty is a real handicap in being prepared for higher education. I live in a socioeconomically diverse school district. Approximately 25% of kids qualify for the free or reduced meal program. There is a definite gap in achievement between these kids and the more wealthy kids in the same school district. They all go to the same high school, but year after year, the top 10% of the class is considerably whiter and richer than their fellow classmates. That doesn't mean that poor kids aren't smart, or that poor kids can't be successful, it just means it's less likely. I'm sure elite colleges would love to find high achieving poor kids who could thrive in their schools. There's no doubt in my mind those kids bring a lot to the classroom. Unfortunately, there is not a rich supply of high achieving poor children ready to handle the rigors of elite colleges.</p>
<p>The point I take from this article is that poor students can and do matriculate at elite colleges. However, some of the elite colleges are doing a much better job at outreach than others.</p>
<p>"For example, 27 percent of all students at Smith College receive Pell Grants. This is triple the percentage of low-income students at Harvard and Princeton. At Mount Holyoke 20 percent of the student body comes from low-income families. At Barnard, Wellesley, and Oberlin the percentage of low-income students is about double the rate that prevails at Harvard and Princeton."</p>
<p>Smith does an excellent job, as my email inbox can demonstrate. I know a few Smith alums, who bombard me (and several other women in our circle) with emails, which are always entitled "Another Smith College Event". The outreach is constant. We are asked to pass the word along....and the events are usually focused on black students. Though, only 10% of the Pell receipients at top LACs are black. 90% of Pell students in top colleges are white. That's just an aside. </p>
<p>I won't pretend to know how a college would go about identifying potential low-income students at the recruitment stage. I'm sure the info could be collected as easily as the race info is collected. My son sure received tons of collateral from colleges that indicated that they know he's black. The "black students at Harvard" sent him a two page letter......all kinds of diversity info...and counseled him to remain calm and thorough throughout the process. He's got a stack of business cards from minority recruiters at various schools.....not that these people really recruited.....they basically just handed him their cards, asked about his SAT scores, noodded blankly and shook his hand.....brown figure heads. The real "warm and fuzzy" stuff came from the normal regional reps. Actually, Williams did a nice job of focusing on minority recruiting....they had a low-key, helpful approach. </p>
<p>But, the point is, if they are willing to invest in minority recruiting, why not invest in socioeconomic diversity recruiting? </p>
<p>Anyway, my takeaway is that lack of outreach from the top schools lends to the handicap of poverty in elite college admissions. Smith has made a case for this.
Basically, they have called...and the Pell students have answered the call. So, for all of the schools that claim that nobody is answering, perhaps it's because nobody has called. </p>
<p>Hmmmm, it's interesting to note that the schools with the largest Pell penetration ar women's colleges. Could it be that women from little means fare better academically than men in the same situation? That's a separate topic, I suppose.</p>
<p>It is indeed the source for Mini's oft-quoted views on financial aid. </p>
<p>The report does, however. only shows one angle of the financial aid puzzle in colleges. From a past discussion on this subject, I remember comparing the numbers for Harvard and Mount Holyoke, one of the institutions that is displayed favorably on the quoted report. My conclusions were that Harvard aid was more generous -even before the massive increases in the past two years- than Mt Holyoke's much flaunted aid. Additional elements need to be analyzed. For instance, how well does a college answers to the 100% need might be more important than the percentage of Pell grants at the school. </p>
<p>Another conclusion was that Mt. Holyoke HAS to use the financial aid as a marketing tool to attract student, and that financial aid at the school is fraught with ulterior motives. The fact that they HAVE to rebate their tuition by 45% is more a testament to their lower selectivity and reputation than to their generosity.</p>
<p>'Why not invest in socioeconomic diversity.' Because they don't think that is their mission.
It not that these kids don't have something to offer. Of course they have something to offer. But when you have people from all over the globe interested in your educational programs, the mission of the university changes because the university is in a unique international position.</p>
<p>Well, the main thing is that, in aggregrate (with thousands of exceptions), Pell Grant students LOOK different than other students. Remember, a 1400 SAT score (according to the College Board) is simply a 1200 plus $100,000 in annual family income. Their ECs look different. Their schools look different (AP offerings? sometimes they are lucky if the school has Algebra II.) What they do in their summer "vacations" is different. The list could go on.</p>
<p>But it's not difficult to find them. You just have to make the commitment to look (and devote money - LOT'S of it, to doing so.). And what the colleges are demonstrating is that, when accepted, they often do just as well. Not always - too often they are called upon to deal with disruptions in home life, etc. But the point is, it would be hard to argue that Pell students at Smith (or Amherst, where they are making a big push), would not do just as well as Harvard. HYP has made a choice not to seek out these students, and that is their prerogative; it is, I agree, THEIR money. But I would argue that the education of their wealthier students is missing out as a result.</p>
<p>Allow were to endorse -for an instant- Mini's position that the 1200 SAT + 100,000 equals a 1400. </p>
<p>Would it not be fair to also acknowledge that a school like Mount Holyoke has to accept many students that are simply non-acceptable at a more prestigious school? Their SAT and EC do indeed look different, and we can safely assume that their level and quality might satisfy one school but not the other. </p>
<p>As far as "looking" for students, isn't again a simple marketing gimmick? Some schools could maintain staggering numbers of application without much effort or spending, some others HAVE to double the efforts, and also have to reach deep down the range of acceptable students. </p>
<p>So, if I were to accept that poverty ALWAYS contributes to lower SAT scores, I'd find it absolutely normal that fewer students from lower-income attend the schools that occupy the pinnacle of US institutions.</p>
<p>As far as HYP not seeking lower-income students, that may be true ... but to an extent. The students, who are able to find the website and apply, should find out that the new policies started by Princeton -only grants for lower incomes- are MUCH better than at other schools. The key to attend is not the lacking financial aid but the acceptability of the student.</p>
<p>I think what Xiggi says is exactly right. Most of the colleges that appear more generous are simple the ones that have a need to market such incentives to pull in students.</p>
<p>Is it really the colleges job to go out and hunt any specific kind of student? There are programs like ABC and Prep for Prep that go into inner cities and cultivate motivated srudents. State governments have programs and so on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think what Xiggi says is exactly right. Most of the colleges that appear more generous are simple the ones that have a need to market such incentives to pull in students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the first four LACs on the list are single-sex schools, which have to draw from "further down the list" to fill each class.</p>
<p>These colleges may be satisfying their quota of poorer students by their athletes.If Joe Smoe is poor, and smart and plays great basketball he may be given a full b ball scholarship and that would explain why other grants are not necessary.
But I don't think it's anything these colleges worry about because it is not their mission. There are colleges who make it their mission to be inclusive, to have diverse student body. But top schools have other preoccupations like, well, we have to have an outstanding football team this year so the alumni will donate or come out to the games, we haven't won that in a while, or, we need a prize winning published poet who can hold his own internationally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Joe Smoe is poor, and smart and plays great basketball he may be given a full b ball scholarship and that would explain why other grants are not necessary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In making this full fide available schools are always going to use some one elses money first. In coming up witha financial aid package , the school's scholarship would be used to as an add-on to the Pell grant (not replace it)</p>
<p>That's interesting. Really?</p>
<p>All the arguments are sound...until you come to Amherst, which has now (for the last 5 years) been making a big push to increase economic diversity on campus. Certainly no one would argue they lack for applicants. Nor would one argue that the education isn't working. Nor, for that matter, that the Pell Grant students who are doing the work at Amherst (and I would argue Smith as well, which has more Fulbright scholars than Yale, with half the student population) couldn't do the work at HYP.</p>
<p>The Princeton example shows precisely how the lack of experience with low-income students leads to wrong policy choices. They eliminated loans on the assumption (or so they trumpeted in their press releases - whether they believed it or not, you'll have to ask them) that it would attract low-income students. It didn't. It DID attract middle- and upper-middle income students who could qualify for small(er) amounts of financial aid. (Brown, in contrast, got it right - the issue for low-income students is summer work expectations, and on-campus workstudy, when these students may require such income to send home to their families.)</p>
<p>It is tautological to say that those accepted at Mount Holyoke are "unacceptable" at HYP. Duh - they didn't get accepted (if they bothered to apply.) But they weren't "unacceptable" because they couldn't do the work, likely as well or better than those accepted. They were "unacceptable" precisely because they had the wrong ECs, wrong "academic preparation", and lower SAT scores - in short, because they were poorer, and smell bad.</p>
<p>The colleges can and do go out and hunt for students from certain economic classes. They do it by zip code, by relationships with GCs, by looking for certain ECs, through development admits, through legacies. The students they hunt for can and do fulfill the institutional missions of the colleges. Certainly, there's no reason why they should do otherwise - it works for them, doesn't it?</p>
<p>Many of the Pell recipients at Barnard, Columbia and Cornell most likely come throught the state's HEOP program. </p>
<p>Opportunity Programs and Undergraduate Services</p>
<p>Mission & History of OPUS </p>
<p>Opportunity Programs and Undergraduate Services (OPUS) was founded in 1988 as the umbrella organization for the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) and the National Opportunity Program (NOP) at Columbia University. Working with students from Columbia College and The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, OPUS provides intensive, integrated, and comprehensive academic and personal support in order to maximize student success. </p>
<p>Currently found at over sixty independent colleges and universities, the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) was established by the New York State Legislature in 1969 to assist eligible New York State residents in obtaining higher education at private institutions. Columbia College has participated in the program since 1970 and The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science has participated since 1978. In 1986, the University created the National Opportunity Program (NOP) and made a commitment to provide the same kind of academic and financial support offered to eligible New York residents to students from the entire United States. </p>
<p>Program Services </p>
<p>Support services available to Program students include: </p>
<p>Full financial aid for the academic year.
Five-week pre-freshman residential & academic summer program.
Individualized/group tutorial services.
Academic, personal, career, and financial counseling.
Professional and peer mentoring programs.
Semester book allowance.
OPUS Textbook Library. </p>
<p>The Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) provides supportive services and financial aid to New York State residents attending independent colleges and universities in New York State.</p>
<p>Who is Eligible?</p>
<p>To be eligible for HEOP you must meet all of the following conditions. You must:</p>
<p>1.Have been a resident of New York State for one year preceding your term of entry into HEOP.</p>
<p>2.Possess a high school diploma or a State-approved equivalency diploma or its equivalent. The equivalent of a general equivalency diploma is defined as being one of the following:</p>
<p>a)An Armed Forces Equivalency Diploma, with a minimum score of 40 on each test section and a minimum composite score of 225;</p>
<p>b)A level of knowledge and academic ability equal to the level required for entrance to the educational opportunity program at the institution to which the individual seeks admission.</p>
<p>3.Be educationally disadvantaged. An educationally disadvantaged student is a student who otherwise would not be accepted as a matriculated student under the institution's normal admissions standards in the degree program for which application is made. At open admissions institutions, an educationally disadvantaged student must meet one of the following criteria:</p>
<p>a) Possess a high school equivalency diploma; or
b) Possess the equivalent of a GED; or
c) Have no high school diploma; or
d) Meet other acceptable academic criteria, which differentiate the HEOP student from regularly admitted students (e.g., lower test scores, lower GED scores).</p>
<p>4.Have the potential and motivation for successful completion of college.</p>
<p>5.Be economically disadvantaged.
6.Have been in an approved opportunity program (if a transfer student).</p>
<p>Also as one of the largest employers to harlem residents, Columbia University makes great strides to partner with and give back to the community in which it resides.</p>
<p>In addition, Barnard College has 2 pre-college programs;</p>
<p>Liberty Partnership</p>
<p>STEP (Science and Technology Entry Program)</p>
<p>I have a friend that studied at both Mt Holyoke and then Penn. She said Mt Holyoke was harder with more work.</p>
<p>Mini, I agree with you on this issue. Why are both Harvard and Princeton trying to attract lower income students? Maybe, they see things the way Mini does? Maybe, to get a full education it helps to find out how poorer people think? They are part of this world too. </p>
<p>When graduates of Harvard and Princeton are making decisions that affect 50 million poor people in this country, maybe they will make better decisions if they have had contact with these people and see how they live and learn how they think.</p>
<p>BHG, I see your point. But, HYP HAVE stated that they have a missions to diversify by race. I believe they are making a huge mistake by not focusing on the economic factor.....along with race. They claim that they have a hard time increasing their racial diversity. Well, duh! </p>
<p>Perhaps the more talented black students will react to Harvard the way my own son did (see my previous quote of his reaction) "ain't no way in hell!".... then he made comments about not wanting to spend 4 years in a white bastion of wealth where students named "Chauncy" (pronounced with british accent) skipped across the yard. I spent a lot of time trying to convince him this wasn't the case in Cambridge....and that there were all kids of kids on campus. (see my previous posts of frustration about the Harvard visit from last August) I suppose I was wrong. </p>
<p>Not that he'll have any difference at Penn........but I don't think he felt the need to go to Boston for such an experience when he can surround himself by the same kids here....and at least find "the hood" if he feels the need for a rough game of street ball. And, what were the choices amongst top schools? According to the article, there really are none. </p>
<p>True, we're far from Pell level. But, I'm sure a well diversified school with elite admissions will attract a much more globally minded crowd, which is, IMHO, the optimal environment for growth.</p>
<p>And while it's true that the top Pell schools in the article have to move lower into the applicant pool to fill their classes, I don't think that equates to Pell recipients. There are plenty of wealthy, 1300-1400 / 3.0-3.5 GPAs from which to pull.</p>
<p>I really take exception to using this very narrow approach to judge a school's committment to the poor. As someone from the LA projects, I can tell you that Harvard, Yale and other top schools have done an amazing job of reaching out. Of supporting kids once they get there. Of being inclusive. I can assure you that most everyone in my graduating class some 20 odd years ago was exposed to a very broad mix of people. When you are constructing a class that has a lot of internationals and draws from every State, achieving diversity does not mean having the most kids whose parents make under $40K/yr. Though there were pleanty of us.</p>
<p>Amherst is a top school, but it doen't attract anywhere near the number of internationals or even far flung Americans. I haven't looked, but I'd have to guess a lot of their students are from the NE and mid atlantic States. So they, like Smith and Holyoke, have to define diversity in a different way than do the ivies.</p>