Is it measurably better for low income high achieving kids to attend selective/elite colleges? Does being at a school where the vast majority graduate on time and are also high achievers make it more likely that the low income high achiever will also graduate an time or is that kid going to do just as well at a directional or taking the CC-to-4-year route?
I’d assumed yes and have read it in many articles - that’s why Questbridge and Posse and many orgs exist - but it would be interesting to hear opinions on that.
Would this be assuming that affordability is similar, so that running out of money does not become a factor in dropping out or taking longer to graduate?
I am reposting my response to the other thread, which I put up while you were creating this one:
Just one data point, but as a former low SES admit to a highly selective college (although certainly not Yale level) I can say absolutely that going to a school with the money and resources to help a kid not used to some of the really basic rules of education that most upper middle class and higher kids (including my own) learn early helped me get through and graduate.
I think people sometimes misinterpret some of the academic challenges faced by low SES kids from crappy high schools who head off to college. I am not talking about the relative difference in academic rigor between Bucknell (where I attended) and a local state school, but just basic things like learning that you have to show up for class regularly, how to take notes, the need to do your work regularly, or how to study. In my high school, no one cared if I showed up for class, because I was smart enough to do well on the tests and didn’t create problems for the teacher (well, the last may not be absolutely true). I certainly never took a note in my life, and a particular point of pride was that I did not take a single school book out of my locker for my entire senior year. This behavior was not unusual in my high school, and I guarantee it is not unusual in bottom performing urban (probably suburban and rural too) high schools now. In fact, things are likely worse. I don’t think people realize how truly terrible some of our public high schools are compared to the schools most of our kids attend.
In any event, the challenges I outlined above will hit the low SES kid whether he is at Amherst or Univ of Akron. I know plenty of kids (athletes and non athletes) who went to our state universities and fumbled around for a quarter or three before dropping out or being kicked out because they didn’t have the tools necessary to succeed and/or know how to access the support network to get them help. The benefit of a smaller, more elite school is that there is a greater chance the kid is helped by the ever-present academic advising, reaches out to the myriad tutoring services available, or that a prof in one of his generally much smaller classes takes an interest and extends a hand.
Its not just about who took the most APs (I didn’t even know what AP was when I got to college) or who went to the science olympiad.
@ucbalumnus - I guess so since low income kids usually get good FA from elites if they get in. Running out may be more of an issue at a directional or CC than at an elite meets-need school, though mileage may vary. Some might require loans that CC wouldn’t.
I’m more interested in the idea that a high achieving low income kid could do just as well as a school with a low grad rate and lower achieving kids (in terms of stats) as that kid could at an elite meets-need school. I’ve assumed this to be the case but I’ve not seen any evidence to that effect.
There’s controversy surrounding this. Off of memory (I may have parts of this wrong), the late SCOTUS justice Scalia cited a study during oral arguments that implied some minority students graduate at higher rates in some fields in less higher tier schools than similarly qualified minority peers at some elite schools. It was savagely attacked and rebuffed, I recall.
Most elites will be cheaper for disadvantaged kids than their state schools, hence improving their odds eight off the bat. As Ohiodad said, the advising, support, and resources are also incredibly helpful.
Research has actually shown that attending an elite school doesn’t make a difference for top students EXCEPT for lower income, urm , and/or first generation students.
Finally another study showed that lower income, top students who start at community college have lower odds of graduating than bottom ranked, upper income students; starting at a 4-year university doesn’t help lower income top students as much as attending an elite does but it makes it much more likely they’ll graduate, depending on the university 's financial aid/costs - better not live in Pennsylvania or Illinois, nor Alabama or Colorado.
(there are exceptions, for instance California .)
Different question. Not all minority kids are poor, and not all white kids are rich.
Yep, if we are talking truly low SES. Tuition, room and board are probably taken care of at either end of the spectrum. Travel is a huge expense (my dad had to borrow a car to come and see me at college). But I think a lot of the Ivys et al are now providing a travel allowance in their financial aid awards which assumedly would let a kid get home once or twice a year. Not sure if that level of aid is available at “normal” schools. But again, it is not all big ticket stuff. Think about things like cost to print documents, cost of laundry, availability of usable computers, ability to scrounge supplies, etc. All of that is going to be more easily handled by low SES kids at wealthier schools. Add in that at my kid’s school they have I think five different meals a day plus something called “drunk meal” very late at night, and various “study breaks” with snacks/milk etc and a poor kid can likely get by in relative comfort at his elitist school, whereas that same kid may be scrounging change at Ohio State to run a load of laundry or to split a pizza while cramming for a final.
^ not exactly. I think it’s around $120K and different schools do that differently. But in general low income kids who can get into a Stanford or Harvard (or Amherst or Williams) will have very good financial aid to cover tuition, or even the entire cost of attendance (with some work study, student contribution, etc).
The highly selective private colleges with the best financial aid will offer grants reducing the net price to $4,000 to $6,000 for the students from the lowest income/assets families (assuming cooperation of both parents with financial aid forms and nothing especially unusual like small business, real estate, or self-employment revenue), according to their net price calculators. No need to speculate or assume here, if the college has a reasonably detailed net price calculator.
Of course, getting admitted is the hard part. Those colleges generally admit a very-skewed-toward-upper-income-families admissions class, resulting in about half of enrollees being no-financial-aid students.
Which brings us back to…assuming money is equal, is the low income A student with the 2200SAT going to benefit from a Harvard or Swarthmore over their state school or a directional?
Is there anything to be said about being middle of a high-stats pack vs big fish in a small pond for low income students in particular?
In terms of being a big fish in a small pond, I think that benefits more those kids who are motivated and have college-educated parents who are middle-class or above.
Less hand-holding and fewer resources at a public than an elite private.
A lower-SES kid who didn’t have college-educated parents and doesn’t know the ropes (in terms of what is possible, what to do/not to do) is more liable to fall through the cracks at a big state U or follow unsuccessful examples.
^ that was certainly true in the study described in “Paying for the Party”. That was a flagship too (IU).
I know that at my kid’s LAC it would be very difficult for her to fall through the cracks even if she never sought out help on hr own, it would come find her. But is the same support there at a Stanford or Harvard?
Ah, true. LAC’s in general would be more supportive and have more hand-holding than bigger research U’s. But the rich elites have a ton of resources. Advising, grants for unpaid internships, interview coaching, etc.
I assume they all do, though I hear grumbling from Columbia kids, for example, about lousy/nonexistent advising so it may depend.
Do state schools not have these things? They seem important for low income/1st gen kids particularly.
Amherst plans to use the million it was awarded by JCK this year to fund summer internships and research (which it already does, but it’s a competitive process so some kids don’t get it…I guess more will, now).
Probably have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
For example, UMich has a big endowment and so it’s student/career counselor ratio, while not among the best, is comparable to some privates. And any half-decent b-school wants to get its students hired. And even among the Ivies, yes, there seems to be a big variation in focus in undergraduate education. And even among rich elites, some have that internship grants program and some don’t (and some rely on student peer tutors while others spend money to employ professionals to staff writing centers, etc.).
In general, there seems to be a bigger safety net for low-SES kids at richer schools and LACs, however.
