Income Levels at Top Colleges (Mini, have you seen this?)

Parents Forum
101

<p>I also suspect there is something about Williams that makes it less attractive to urban-oriented kids. My own son was accepted by Williams some years ago sight unseen, but once seen he concluded that it was just too isolated, too small, too jocky, and too homogeneous for him, and he chose to go elsewhere (Chicago). There was even one professor at Williams at the time who herself was concerned about all of those things and suggested to my son that he might not like it there. At the same time, he and I were being strongly encouraged to choose Williams by a professional colleague of mine (Williams alum) who did not fit the "type." But to no avail.</p>

<p>I agree that those stats don't tell the whole story, and that there are in fact some kids who really are attracted to urban settings (my kids and many others in their cohort are) or who need to have regular access to big city escapes. (I went to a small college, Reed, in an urban area, but in truth 98% of my life was on campus and if Reed had been in western Massachusetts it would have been fine with me. But not for my kids.)</p>

102

<p>Re working while on financial aid and the current Yale demonstration: <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/02/25/news/12156.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/02/25/news/12156.shtml&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=28583%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=28583&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

103

<p>Nedad, just want to point out that a few anecdotal data points about people who started humble and ended up rich is interesting.... and I have my own story to tell, but the data suggests that we are anomolies. Interesting analysis in the Economist a few months ago (I don't have time to poke for the link but someone else may) that points out how stratified the US has become in the last two generations; how linked parental education levels and your own future income is; how intractable poverty has become for huge cohorts of our society.</p>

<p>That's why I find the outrage here about Williams or Wesleyan or whatever so ridiculous. It's strange to demonize a few private institutions, who after all, educate a tiny, tiny percentage of the 18-24 year old population even if you added them all together, when the vast majority of college age kids are being locked out of higher education on a systemic basis. As someone else pointed out on this thread, the ticket out of poverty is a good high school education and night school/community college for a huge number of teenagers; our state U's are too busy building basketball arenas and football stadiums to worry about hiring enough professors of of bio and and chem, and we're busy chanting "no child left behind".</p>

<p>Do we really care about how diverse Amherst is, and does the presence of another 20 african americans in Williamstown makes a rat's $%^ difference in the composition of our society.</p>

<p>Jeez.</p>

104

<p>I would like to point out that income and wealth are not exactly the same things. It takes time to accumulate wealth even with a significant income. I'll never be able to retire shelling out what FAFSA thinks I can afford to spare to send three kids to college however fair their decisions on that might be. In that context I'm less certain what rich is. To live well (or modestly and give more to charity than you can write off your taxes) from pay check to pay check, ever aware it could end tomorrow, is certainly good, but is it "rich"?</p>

<p>I would have thought it common that people who were dirt poor (I'm a Southerner) in the 70s could have higher incomes now. I benefited from the Pell grant once upon a time, but benefited more from the GI Bill.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
I would like to point out that income and wealth are not exactly the same things. It takes time to accumulate wealth even with a significant income.

[/quote]

Strick11, Chris Rock had a great riff on the difference between "rich" and "wealthy" that began: Shaquille O. is rich; the man who writes his paychecks is wealthy!" and went on, "You can't get RID of wealth; rich you can lose in one summer doing drugs," or something like that. It was hysterical.</p>

<p>Blossom, I won't quote your post because I agree with all of it. You are right about stratification for whole cohorts - but I did just want to point out that social mobility IS possible. And I have ALWAYS thought the state schools must do much more, and we should all do all we can for public education, not just because it is right, but also because if we don't, it will come back to bite us --- a "Blade-Runner" future.....</p>

<p>Tokenadult, I was very sorry to hear about your dad. Makes my mom's broken hip seem like a blip on the screen of life. I don't know what to say to express my compassion, except I truly wish you and your dad the best.</p>

106

<p>SBmom,</p>

<p>hippie and rich..........I see Brown in your past or future. lol</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
Do we really care about how diverse Amherst is, and does the presence of another 20 african americans in Williamstown makes a rat's $%^ difference in the composition of our society.

[/quote]

Great post blossom ... and your whole post is a great example of thinking globally. </p>

<p>To give Amherst and Smith credit; they are doing a great job of acting locally. Any one of us can not fix the inequities in the overall educational system in the US but if more of us did more locally to ensure our schools or companies did a better job than the overall picture would certainly improve.</p>

108

<p>Hey nedad. I was not maligning topsiders! Just love them!! But as you say, someone needed to address the Muffy lives here thinking. Please!! Some of the comments I have read on this board that ascribe myriad negatives to the wealthy are disturbing. My all time favorite was one that suggested minority ivy grads were sell outs who joined the "white world."</p>

<p>There are lots of flames for anyone bashing AA (good) or any other liberal cause, but few defenders of those terrible wealthy folks who have given all the money Harvard and Williams are supposed to be more generous with! Well thanks for getting that off my chest!</p>

<p>SBmom, love your story. Where did you end up going?</p>

109

<p>Could it be that Pell Grants are NOT good indicators of commitment to economic diversity? >></p>

<p>Mootmom, I think you have hit on something very important. There ARE lots of low income and middle income families who do NOT qualify for Pell Grants but need financial aid in order to attend college. I think it may be a fallacy to rely to heavily on one indicator of income. Let's keep in mind that the Pell Grant is only $4,000 a year --- doesn't make much of dent when the cost of attending a school is over $40,000. But it makes more a dent if one is going to attend a lower cost school (even a PRIVATE lower cost school).</p>

<p>What we really need are actual numbers of income levels of the students at various institutions to compare. </p>

<p>Another option is to look at the amount of students who apply for financial aid based on need and the percentage of students who are determined to have need and have that need fully met as an indicator of the "wealth" of students and a school's willingness to support lower income students. The average financial aid package extended is also telling to some extent about how "low income" the kids attending a particular school are. </p>

<p>That may not let some of these schools "off the hook" but it is a clearer indicator, to me at least, of how many kids are attending that come from lower income homes. </p>

<p>Some examples:</p>

<p>Harvard: 52% of students applied for need based aid, Of those 47% were determined to have financial need and 100% had their need fully met. The average package was $25,514.</p>

<p>USC- 60% of undergrads applied for financial aid, 49% of those were determined to have financial need of those 92% had their need fully met by financial aid. Average financial aid package was $25,182 </p>

<p>Smith - 69% of students applied for financial aid, 64% were determined to have need, 100% had their need fully met, average financial aid package was $25,647</p>

<p>Williams - 48% of undergrads applied for financial aid, of those 42% were determined to have financial need, 100% had their need fully met, average financial aid package was $24,226</p>

<p>MIT - 77% of undergraduates applied for financial aid, of those 71% were determined to have need, 100% had their need met, average financial aid package was $22,010</p>

110

<p>fwiw: One of the things that got lost in all of the angst about John Moore's report to the Univ of Cal Regents was that, if the UC's started actively recruiting in economically disadvantaged areas, the Univ system would have less people of color. Thus, they went to the 4% ELC solution.</p>

111

<p>Woodwork is a psychic. Brown. :)</p>

112

<p>carolyn, I can't help but wonder how much of the numbers you've mention just reflects an intersection of US income statistics, unusually high tuition and fees, and large endowments. I admit it's a choice to fully fund need, of course.</p>

113

<p>Okay I'm coming in late in the game, but this is my personal favorite issue on this site, so I gotta post. Quick background, I'm a current Berkeley pell grant student. My arguments don't come as a bitter Ivy reject (Cal was the only place I wanted to go) but as someone very concerned with American social mobility. </p>

<p>As y'all can see from the link on the first page, Berkeley and UCLA each have more pell grant students than <em>all</em> of the 8 Ivy Leagues combined. So yeah, it is possible to have poor people in a good school, amazingly enough. For the most part, I agree with everything said by dstark and most everything said by mini so far </p>

<p>To start: a good economist on the idea social mobility that nedad keeps referring to. <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560&lt;/a>
Statistically, more social mobility is found today in countries across the seas. In America today, it's possible, but not probable. The top American universities are perhaps the most valuable tool for social mobility and at the same time they’re one of the biggest factors for the lackthereof. </p>

<p>blossom says: </p>

<p>"Do we really care about how diverse Amherst is, and does the presence of another 20 african americans in Williamstown makes a rat's $%^ difference in the composition of our society."</p>

<p>The LACs are a tiny decimal point in the big picture and it's a mistake to make the debate about them. The problem is the in top 20 (maybe top 50?) schools. My reasoning is exactly the same as dstark's:</p>

<p>Dstark says: </p>

<p>"This Pell Grant issue is a big deal to me because the students coming out of these elite schools become leaders and are coming out with policies that affect the lives of millions and millions of people and they are clueless about how these people live and their needs and wants."</p>

<p>Bingo!!</p>

<p>HYPS etc. degrees are powerful things; a significant percentage of the leaders of this country come from a tiny percentage of these elite schools. Would kirmum be where she is if she went to Florida State? Surely no. And of course, you're not going to become president just because you graduated from Yale, but it doesn't seem to hurt...</p>

<p>Harvard etc. can improve financial aid and get rid of loans: that's nice. But this doesn't matter if people aren't accepted. The issue is admittance policy.</p>

<p>So I blame affirmative action. And at the same time I'm not opposed to affirmative action itself. Nevertheless, with AA in place, colleges already feel self-righteous with their “moral” admittance policies, and keep the current system of legacy, private school contacts etc. in place. Rich white kids on this site whine incessantly about AA, little do they know how much it helps them. 50 years ago Harvard was nothing but rich white men, and now it’s rich white men and women, and some rich minorities too. Kirmum can say otherwise, but numbers speak louder than anecdotal evidence. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, Backhandgrip’s thoughts on this issue are quite scary, it seems like he’s arguing for some type of global aristocracy run by Harvard? Not to say this isn’t the status quo, but it’s certainly nothing to argue <em>for</em>.</p>

114

<p>The simplest, and most direct remedy would be kill legacy. Not to say that this would fix all the problems, but legacy is an <em>institutionalized</em> policy that works against the poor/middle classes. </p>

<p>But we all know this has about as much chance as happening as Lawrence Summers getting a sex change. </p>

<p>Economic affirmative action is much more realistic and I think the universities can realistically be pressured into it.</p>

115

<p>BB:</p>

<p>I hope you try Pisani's stat class. If so, at the end of the semester, you'll be able to re-read the Economist article much more analytically. But, if you want to get a head-start, you can search the cc, and find where many of us already pointed out the obvious flaws in the article.</p>

<p>Or, look at the article's political angle another way....do you really think Teddy would NOT be senator if he went to Podunk U? Or, the other Senator from Mass, a "Brahmin Blue Blood," was rejected by Harvard Law, so had to settle for BC.</p>

116

<p>Just like the other dude was rejected by U Texas Law and had to settle on his legacy at Harvard BS? </p>

<p>Do you really think I'm saying Democrats don't benefit from this **** as much as Republicans?</p>

117

<p>BigBrother, </p>

<p>I agree with much of what you say. </p>

<p>We know a few URM kids who have more advantages than 99% of caucasian kids-- but they're still black/hispanic as far as AA stats are concerned.</p>

<p>However, if the legacy & development admit policy was killed, there wouldn't be the same donor $ coming in, to support needy & worthy applicants. Legacy gives a slight edge only (and most legacys are rejected) because it is sort of <em>required</em> to keep alumni happy & giving while they fantasize about their kids going to their alma mater some day.</p>

<p>BTW my parents, who graduated UCB & Boalt Law, have given plenty for scholarships supporting kids like the kids they were-- smart & poor. UCB's app doesn't even ask if any of your relatives attended! A big alumni donor's granddaughter thus gets <em>no</em> boost at UCB. Which is appropriate because public education should not work that way. I disagree that private schools should work identically to public schools.</p>

<p>In my town, the planning people are trying to create subsidized housing-- spiffy for-sale condos for people making $100K-- because the cost of living is so high in So Calif. But I am concerned with the most number of people getting off the street or into section 8 housing, much more than I am about a much smaller #of six figure earners winning a housing lotto. Similarly, I think we should focus on the highest HS graduation rates/skills, and the most kids getting to ANY college. </p>

<p>There is NO SYSTEM where accident of birth advantages/disadvantages can ever be totally erased. I think most of us agree that excellent students, whatever their economic situation, can all find homes at top schools... and many of these schools are increasingly elite. In another thread I argued that UC Berkeley is now a status school. (While it has long been an excellent school, there was nowhere near the status & selectivity 25 years ago when all B averages got in to UCs.) </p>

<p>In a sense, the Berkeleys are turning into the new Harvards, so the power elite being composed of bigger #s of kids from economically disadvanted backgrounds is coming true more all the time.</p>

<p>A final problem with promoting social mobility long term, on a political level, by having more formerly-poor elite school grads-- this assumes that kids who "make it" will even execute the correct policies down the line. Many of them will be too busy making it-- buying mom a house or sending cousin Fred to private school-- to consider becoming political or corporate Robin Hoods. Some will become converts to capitalist-style rugged individualism. It is a big presupposition to imagine that kids who grew up poor will be exponentially more likely to reject the advantages of being "elite" once they have them.</p>

118

<p>SB = Santa Barbara, SBmom? If so, your town = my town. </p>

<p>I agree on the legacy = $$ and that's why I said it's not even a remote possibility.</p>

<p>You make a <em>very</em> good point in the last paragraph. The poor people who "make it" (in this case with the aid of a golden degree) often come out with the attitude of "I'm hard working and now wealthy, anyone who isn't wealthy isn't hard working". An attitude that I see some traces of, among some in this discussion...</p>

119

<p>Carolyn:</p>

<p>"Some examples: Harvard: 52% of students applied for need based aid, Of those 47% were determined to have financial need and 100% had their need fully met. The average package was $25,514. ..."</p>

<p>Regarding the financial aid discussed in your post, there is an additional dimension: not all financial aid packages are equal. In an earlier discussion, I compared the packages at Mt Holyoke, a school praised for its finaid to the package offered by Harvard. One of the salient difference was the amount of loans at graduation. Even if the interest rates are attractive, the bill will still come sooner or later.</p>

120

<p>BigBrother, when I read your posts, it just confirms what I already know, UC Berkeley is the best school in the US. :)</p>