<p>(1) If Brown "got it right" this is probably because Brown's President, Ruth Simmons, grew up in an extremely poor family-- and so would have first hand knowledge of how to make education more accessible for the very poor & what would be most meaningful.</p>
<p>(2) Pell Grant qualification is one very good measure of economic need, but let's face it, in many areas of the country where expenses are very high-- or given a large family size, or medical issues--a family with a $50,000/year income is not exactly rolling in dough. I would be curious to see whether the diversity numbers may balance more with lower-middl-class, poor, and ultra-poor levels of income (along with cost of living) all accounted for.</p>
<p>(3) Very poor populations also lack the resources (GC's, mentors, etc) that help point kids towards elite institutions. This only makes it more clear (and impressive) that an institution like Smith is really putting out the feelers to draw such a high percentage of poor kids, commensurate with a state U. Most poor kids know about UCLA from TV; not so Smith...</p>
<p>kirmum, I see your point. I still don't think these schools have the right to "define" diversity on their own terms. Diversity includes economic factors, whether a school focuses on that area or not. If HYP have the natural BENEFIT of attracting more internationals and far flung Americans because of the brand recognition, they should have even more time and resource to dedicate to the business of diversifying economically. Amherst has a tougher battle...with the need to WORK to diversify at all levels (georgaphically, racially, economically).</p>
<p>Top schools need to fire on all cylinders, even when only 1 or 2 get them the momentum they want.</p>
<p>When I think about Harvard I think more about their global perspective in education. Yes, some of these type folks they admit will rub some Americans the wrong way. But it's their global perspective that counts. Someone named Chauncy, with a pasty fair complexion and poor athletic skills may have a father who runs a global organization employing thousands, and it's important Chauncy be educated with a Global perspective, for the sake of father's business, and the sake of his nation. It is this racial diversity which Harvard addresses, the needs of the world, not a poor kid of the U.S.. There are plenty of colleges here to address his need- and if he succeeds, there is graduate school at Harvard to possibly consider.
It's important to not take this the wrong way. What helps is to actually meeting some of the kids who do get accepted and attend Harvard. These are the children of the movers and shakers of the world. The education they take back to their country is important.</p>
<p>BHG...not only are we talking about the poor kids of the US...we're talking about the poor kids globally. We already know how Ivies handle financial aid for Internatonals and it seems to be even more out of line than the Pell story.</p>
<p>I think we're moving too far from the point. There's an imbalance....and that imbalance is causing the students at the top schools to miss out on an important factor in their growth and development. If there's a way to address it, as Smith has, I'm all for supporting that the others do the same. </p>
<p>I agree that mixing with the movers and shakers is important and helpful....very helpful. But, too much of anything is never good.</p>
<p>I mean, this is my personal opinion but, I don't think a place like Havard would ever intentionally admit anyone who they did not think had a understandling of Harvard's gobal mission.</p>
<p>the topic on one of Amherst's supplemental essays:</p>
<p>For me, diversity is not a political slogan or a theoretical goal; it is an absolute necessity. It is impossible for students from any particular background to engage fully the racial and ethnic dimensions of American culture in a setting that does not approximate the racial composition of the society as a whole.
From an essay published February 26, 2003, in the Chicago Sun-Times by Frederick E. Hoxie, Amherst Class of 1969,
Amherst trustee, Swalund Professor of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign</p>
<p>"Remember, a 1400 SAT score (according to the College Board) is simply a 1200 plus $100,000 in annual family income."</p>
<p>An aside and note I may have misunderstood. I'll accept the correlation, but not necessarily that interpretation. What evidence did they offer, mini, that the cause isn't the other way around; that is, a score of 1400 equates the ability to earn $100,000? </p>
<p>(I can't help myself. Wonder how much my S's 1500+ was worth?)</p>
<p>Backhand, why should a private institution not have the right to define diversity, or anything else, as they see fit? They have constituants (kind of like corporate board members) who reflect the institution. They give money according to whether the are comfortable with how the institution reflects their values. This money enables the institution to accomodate those who can't afford the sticker price.</p>
<p>So if a school decides that they think a large international presense will benefit them and that means fewer Pell Grant recipients, I think they're entitle to make this choice. I feel so fortunate to have gotten what Harvard and Yale gave me, but in no way do I feel it was their duty and that I was entitled to it. </p>
<p>I think one can make a strong arguement that Harvard is more diverse than Smith or Holyoke. There are a limited number of students interested in these schools and I'm sure you would find an abundance of common views among those who choose an all female institution. It is far more liberal and far more gay than many schools. There are limited internationals. To call them more diverse based on Pell Grants is nonsense IMO.</p>
<p>Also , look at the raw data. If a certain percentage of U.S. population as a whole is, poor, what right does a university have to over represent them in their student body?</p>
<p>Good point strick. Sounds like it's simply gene pool. Do the kids of a plumber who makes $300,000 (trust me, there's lots of them in LA!) score as high as those of a $300,000 executive?</p>
<p>I think that Mini's point is correct in general; the extra $100K income <em>usually</em> means 2 educated parents, pre school, music lessons, and other 'extra' classes, a home where the king's english is spoken and there are lots of books... & probably some turoring or SAT prep, if it was needed, all of which would impact SAT score.</p>
<p>This is why a lower SAT is acceptable at most colleges for a kid with none of these advantages.</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>Since I used the term "unacceptable", allow me to qualify it a bit. I used the term ONLY in the context of applications and admissions. Most people on CC will agree that the vast majority -if not all- of the Harvard applicants are able to "do" the work, and that includes all the special cases. </p>
<p>In this context, the word "unacceptable" reflects that the applicant statistics falls in the lower 25% or even lower 10%. If there are 12,000 to 16,000 applicants with better "packages", it would be hard to consider the lower group to be equal candidates in relation to the group. While it is true that Harvard could admit 4 or 5 times the number of qualified candidates, not all of them are over-qualified, which seems to have become the yardstick for admission.</p>
<p>Thank you Kirmom. This notion of what schools owe any group is crazy. Sure, public colleges have to do different things, but private colleges are private. </p>
<p>Given that the outreach is amazing. They could easily have chosen to remain bastions of the rich.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What evidence did they offer, mini, that the cause isn't the other way around; that is, a score of 1400 equates the ability to earn $100,000?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I agree with SBmom that usually the 100K means more advantages, etc., still, I think the above point of Strick11's is well taken and virtually always overlooked, because it opens yetanother can of worms.</p>
<p>"In this context, the word "unacceptable" reflects that the applicant statistics falls in the lower 25% or even lower 10%. If there are 12,000 to 16,000 applicants with better "packages", it would be hard to consider the lower group to be equal candidates in relation to the group."</p>
<p>But you've made assumptions about "lower". Based on what? That a high-powered equestrian is "higher" than a "low-powered" student who works 30 hours a week to support her family? That a "high-powered" 1550 SAT student, who took the test 3 times, and paid $3,000 for prep courses, besides that received in school, is "higher" than the "low-powered" 1200 where the highest math course offered was Algebra II? That a recommendation from a GC at Haryale Prep is "higher" than one from a place which hasn't had a steady college guidance counselor in a decade?</p>
<p>I can answer my own question of course. The "lower" is defined by the "higher". Again, it's tautological - the students they accept are "higher", therefore the standards by which they accepted them must be "higher". And they are allowed: they make the rules, and it is their money. And they can't go much beyond the tautology, not with the evidence mounting that the "lower" do as well as the "higher" once they are admitted. They don't "owe" anyone anything, and I have never argued that they do.</p>