Any time you apply to a big deal holistic college, it’s a lot more than numbers.
PB, I think when we talk about the failures in public schooling, we miss the successes. Numbers may lean against low performing, low SES schools, but there is still cream that rises, teachers who are smart and dedicated and care. And those successful hs kids are ready for a top college. A lit of generalizing misses that. A lot of stereotyping.
Not all kids have the same advantages. But movement upward is a handful of kids at a time. Thing is, colleges track different sorts of successes. At the college I know best, they are very satisfied with the results of these kids, they graduate, they go on to influence. Maybe not as CEOs, but in life. A geometric progression. Many ways.
My daughter applied ED to my Ivy alma mater who took me in as a poor bum off the street. She would have gotten in on her own merits as she has better grades, test scores and EC’s than her old man. And she’s much better looking?! Her legacy status was simply icing on the cake and they were glad to have her in spite of her poor lineage. Have I been a big donor? No but I’ll gladly step it up and take advantage of some matching to triple my donation for this year.
I think the ED bump is real, but more so at bigger universities. At small lacs, a much bigger percentage of the class are athletes so the ED number is more misleading there.
I agree totally. It’s all incremental. I was responding to another post about how these school districts are disadvantaged. And the outcomes of lower SES students are at a big disadvantage.
I think there are always students who fight through obstacles.
I have a no expertise in the education front except as informed local taxpayer. I see it more on the foster care front where I spend a lot of time.
Personally open to all ideas in improving the lives of children. But also knowing that we have been trying certain fixes for years and if the results aren’t there we should try other things. Like open conversations about these matters.
Also too many people on cc seem to believe if you are not a direct part of that community. You have no useful voice. I disagree with that premise. Because starting points and current points in life as you correctly outline, can change.
I think the key lesson to be learned from JFK is to select parents powerful enough to take something JFK himself called a military failure (his PT-109 experience) and turn him into a war hero by first finding a writer willing to publish a propaganda article, another one willing to write a book, and finally have your father shadow-direct a feature film.
Budding plutocrats and politicians should take note.
Your income doesn’t have to be $250K plus to be full pay. Our income is not nearly that high and and we got no need based aid at Tulane, and we’re a family of 5 with three teenagers. We have money for their educations, but we’d never, ever be able to have them go to one of the elite schools - no matter how well they do, no matter how much they accomplish, no matter how talented they are. It’s not an option for a family like mine, and it never will be. Loads and loads of people just like us all over.
I think President Kennedy was a little more than that as a human being. Both flawed and excellent too.
But as I stated in my original premise. If all you say is true and he and parents deserve or earned nothing in life
Is it still valuable for the other kids that come after the JFKs if the world who pay money build buildings or drive donations (as I think jfk did) over time do the money Is there for them or educators paid for to teach them etc.
Different colleges have different FA, even among colleges that claim to meet full financial need. Many of the highly selective colleges that are frequently discussed on this site do frequently give large aid to persons in the $200k+ income range. For example, Yale prints FA stats by income at https://admissions.yale.edu/financial-aid-prospective-students . A summary is below.
$65k-$100k Income – 99% qualify for aid, Average scholarship is $64k
$100k-$150k Income – 96% qualify for aid, Average scholarship is $54k
$150k-$200k Income – 88% qualify for aid, Average scholarship is $39k
$200k-$250k Income – 64% qualify for aid, Average scholarship is $25k
However, there are also many colleges that give little aid to typical middle income families. Selective colleges with large endowments and a large portion of students coming from wealthy families tend to have outstanding FA that is far beyond typical.
Values are what promotes drives. They aren’t limited to higher SES.
It’s true that many single parent households struggle financially. But don’t confuse that with goals and the goods to reach them.
Kennedy applied to college over 80 years ago, Times were different. Jared applied 20 years ago. Back about then, competition was less, app numbers far lower (less than 50% of now,) and admit percentages much higher. We don’t know that Malia wasn’t a fine candidate. Nor is any of getting an admit as simple as applying with a resume.
And colleges tend to make financial support look easier than it is, for higher ranges. H used to tout some 180k family getting substantial aid…it turned out there were 6 kids, 3 of whom in college simultaneously. (Back before NPCs.)
We are in the midst of an arms race, plain and simple. Colleges are competing for the best students, and the only way get a leg up is to have better amenities. These things cost money, a lot of it.
The fundraising prowess at many of these colleges are bigger than most people imagine. Most donors are honest people who simply want to give back. Colleges need donor money, but yet they don’t want to give the appearance of a quid pro quo. But behind the scenes, if you give enough money, they will take your kid. Read Daniel Golden’s book, its enlightening. Why would colleges continue to ask for alumni donations if it didn’t work?
How to get around this? Look no farther than our friends in Western Europe – public funded universities whose primary mission is education. Not building more overstocked gyms and helping students master the art of beer-pong. Get rid of all of the extraneous BS on college campuses: dining halls, residence halls, gyms, intercollegiate athletics, etc. Be more like European schools where students live at large in the community and cook their own meals in shared apartments. This would do two things: bring the cost of education dramatically down, and also reduce the upward pressure on competition. This would reduce school spirit, and naturally the urge to raise more money. Get rid of any sort of preference: legacy, athletic, donor, etc.
While we’re at it, we should probably get rid of standardized test monopolies like the ACT and SAT. Instead do something like the British A levels where every student studies the same thing, and gets tested at the end of the year on the same metrics. Those who get a certain number of A’s in these courses could then apply to the top level schools. UK schools are very explicit in how many A’s are needed at A level to even apply.
The ultimate equalizer would be a random lottery. Let each school pick their own criteria for ‘competence’. SAT of 1450+ along with GPA > 3.5. Anyone meeting these criteria can then get a ticket to the lottery. After that leave it up to random chance.
Thanks @privatebanker - my son is fine. He was admitted into 10 schools so far and just waiting on 3 (but 3 toughest to get in).
I think we all (I’m guilty) stress out too much about an individual school when our kids can thrive at numerous colleges. It’s about how hard the student works in college anyway, and we just hope they pick right school to have a great experience.
The truth is that our system is easily game-able and it creates a really difficult situation for students. The idea of cutoffs and a lottery is refreshing. I agree it would be much more fair.
There is no way that the top schools would accept a lottery. Nor should they.
Here is a simple sports analogy to explain why. Suppose you were running an NBA basketball team, and you were given the choice of building your team through one of the two choices:
Allowing a lottery to determine which current NBA players make up your team
You could pick any of the NBA players yourself.
Option 1 basically says that all NBA-level players are the same. Option 2 recognizes that there people like LeBron and Curry that are simply so much stronger than everyone else, even though everyone else is already in the top 0.01% of all basketball players.
The same is true among the candidates that apply to the top schools. Many are “merely excellent” with excellent grades and SAT scores and a few ECs. But among the very top you get the world-class musicians, future math prodigies, kids with already huge social impact, and highly gifted athletes with ample brains who tend to become future business leaders.
@hebegebe: definitely agree with your basketball analogy. The elite schools have no incentive to change. Plenty of students who are begging to attend, and donations pouring in. However 90% of the rest of schools in this country are starving for good students. Something really needs to change. Students and parents have very little control. Basic economics of supply and demand don’t seem to work.
Every graduating medical doctor in this country goes through a matching system (National Resident Matching Program or NRMP) to find a residency position. In this system, students apply for residency programs, and after interviewing produce a rank order list. Residency program directors do the same. A computer algorithm is then used to match students to the highest program that also ranked them. This leads to a more equitable system, and doesn’t leave all of the power in the hands of the colleges. While a computer algorithm could handle 20K med students, not sure how well it would work with 2+ million high school graduates. The other problem with a matching system is that most students need financial aid awards at the same time as acceptance to make a decision. But having some sort of computerized ranking system would definitely restore the balance of power.
@sgopal2 This system also includes the interviews which are make or break in many cases. That’s highly subjective. And there is a review of the total package.
The matching is done after these steps. It’s more like a dating site than UG admissions.