<p>I'm very interested in how a person's social and ethnic background affects how he or she does in life. I wanted to shared some observations with you guys and see what you guys think...</p>
<p>American universities boast that they offer equal opportunities to good students regardless of the family they were born into, their race, etc. However, to this day, it is clear that the more selective a school is, the wealtheir its student population is. Now, I know that EVERYONE knows the typical case of a poor minority that overcame all obstacles and made it to Harvard (Princeton, Yale...whatever). But I'm talking majorities here. I read a thread where a girl argued that her unversity (I cant remember which) was not at all elitist since 40% of the student body received financial aid.
Think about that for a second: that means that 60% of the people that attend that school can afford to pay cloase to 50,000 dollars a year, and this is assuming they have no other sibblings in college. I think whoever posted has a distorted perception of reality. 50,000 dollars is a lot more than what most Americans make in a year, and the fact that 60% of the student body can afford it proves that the student body is very, very wealthy, generally speaking. </p>
<p>I have heard numerous arguments to justify the fact that Ivy League students tend to be wealthier. The most common one is the prep school argument: Wealthier families can afford prep schools, whereas people with less resources usually send their kids to public schools. </p>
<p>Well, I can see how there will be a huge difference between a kid that goes to a public school in the Bronx and one from Park Avenue that went to a prep school that costs an ungodly amount of money. But, really, guys...Is there really THAT much of a difference between the prep school rich kid a good student that went to a public high school in an upper-middle class suburb in, say, Boston? I myself went to a public high school in a prosperous town most of my life and then went to a day school that costed some 20,000 dollars a year, and I have to say that the difference in the education was minimal. The only things that were different were 1) that the prep school could choose its student body whereas the high school had to take in just about everyone 2) the class sizes and 3) the fact that private schools tend to prepare students very well for the SAT. </p>
<p>So my conclusion is that if college admissions were 100% merit-based, the great majority of the students at top schools would come from middle-class backgrounds, which isn't the case. I know there are differences between the schools and there are some like Columbia and NYU that have large minority populations, etc. My best guess is that when having to choose between two applicants with similar grades and SATs, admissions boards are more likely to choose one coming from a well-known prep school than one coming from a no-name high school. What do you guys think?</p>
<p>I don't agree with your conclusion. You say that the difference in quality between a prep school and public school is nearly negligible, and I agree. But when you consider the magnitude of the competition at top-tier schools, even the tiniest difference is magnified enormously.</p>
<p>Of course admissions counselors will pick a student from a well-known prep school before one from an obscure public high school. It makes sense; the standards at elite prep schools are well-known (if not always stellar), while there are thousands of public high schools at which a 4.0 means absolutely nothing about a student's ability to succeed.</p>
<p>Personally, I would almost argue the opposite: that elite schools like HYP have what amounts to "affirmative action" for students from little-known public high schools. After all, look at the incredible progress we've made in just two generations. Back then these schools were practically country clubs for rich kids; now we have incredible diversity, even if many of the students still come from top economic strata.</p>
<p>It's just a fact of life that the wealthy will always have more opportunities to get ahead and be successful. And if you think it's "not fair" in college, just wait until real life, when they can go into any business they please and never worry about real risk or failure! (Love him or hate him, our current President is a good example of that phenomenon.) The history of America, in my opinion, has been about recognizing that fact but realizing that hard work can overcome economic differences.</p>
<p>Ok, so I agree that maybe a 4.0 at a well-know prep school may be worth more than a 4.0 at a no-name pulic school. But isn't that what SATs are for? They are supposed to be an objective indicator of what a student has achieved in high school...So a 1400 SAT means a very well-prepared kid regardless of where he went. I do agree with you that a lot of process has been done over the past years. The thing is, before getting involved in the whole "college" admission thing I thought American top schools were much more diverse than what they actually are.</p>
<p>Indeed, the SAT does serve as an excellent objective indicator. But a 1400 on the SAT is not competitive. After all, Harvard receives more applicants with perfect SATs than the size of their classes!</p>
<p>"nearly 2,600 scored a perfect 800 on their SAT verbal test; 2,700 scored 800 on the SAT math"</p>
<p>I'd bet that Princeton's not very far off. Someone receiving a 1400 is certainly "well-prepared" for most colleges, as you say, but probably isn't cut out for H/Y/P.</p>