Note that Harvard and UCLA have nearly the same portion of students in the middle 20-80%. Rather than middle income, the differences more relate to Harvard having more wealthy kids and fewer low income kids. WUSTL shows relatively few middle income kids compared to both Harvard and UCLA, but low income is essentially non-existent, so WUSTL is more of lacking low and to a lesser extent middle income than a donut hole. Harvard and WUSTL appear to have a near balanced representation in the top ~15% income, which corresponded to ~$150k household income in 2018. I’d expect many on this forum to consider this the upper end of middle class.
Legacy preferences are one of many factors that can contribute to this trend. In the Harvard freshman survey 46% of legacies reported more than $500k income, which corresponds to top 1% income. This suggests that the majority of the top 1% income kids at Harvard are legacies. Note that Harvard also gives a preference (much less than legacy preference) for expected lower SES kids, and has a NPC cost to parents of $0 for most of this group. They are making a clear effort to attract lower income kids, yet well qualified applicants lower income are still very underrepresented.
WUSTL
3.7% of students in top 0.1% income (37x over representation)
22% of students in top 0.1-0.9% income (20x over representation)
35% of students in top 1-5% income (9x over representation)
14% of students in top 5-10% income (3x over representation)
13% of students in top 10-20% income (near balanced representation)
~16% of students in middle 20-80% income (4x under representation)
<1% of students in lower 20% income (>20x under representation)
Harvard
3% of students in top 0.1% income (30x over representation)
12% of students in top 0.1-0.9% income (13x over representation)
24% of students in top 1-5% income (6x over representation)
14% of students in top 5-10% income (3x over representation)
14% of students in top 10-20% income (near balanced representation)
29% of students in middle 20-80% income (2x under representation)
4.5% of students in lower 20% income (4x under representation)
UCLA
8% of students in top <1% income (8x over representation)
19% of students in top 1-5% income (5x over representation)
14% of students in top 5-10% income (3x over representation)
18% of students in top 10-20% income (2x over representation)
31% of students in middle 20-80% income (2x under representation)
10% of students in lower 20% income (2x under representation)
Higher parents income always correlates with higher kids aptitude and accomplishment. Unless selective schools choose randomly from the population you are always going to have over representation from higher income families.
People have these misconceptions that the rich can just pay a million dollars to buy their way in and the legacies without significant contributions can enjoy a 30% acceptance rate. I used to think that way too, but not anymore after seeing a few cases myself. In a well publicized case disclosed in the Harvard lawsuit, a family who had donated $8.9m dollars could not secure a spot in acceptance. I know a family who donated $12m last year and the kid’s application was pre-read before the family wrote the check to Harvard. I almost feel sorry for the families who had to buy their way in. How many of us would find a Harvard education or any college education for that matter, worth $12m? I think we should be thankful that the schools find some ways to redistribute wealth in the process.
People like to point out Jerad Kushner whose dad paid $1.9m to get him in. Not only it was more than twenty years ago but also Kushner’s family was so well connected that Natanyahu literally stayed in Jerad’s room every time he visited the States.
Sure, there are those who paid only $200k to $2m, but they are call “legacies”. Among the 13% legacy admits, a third of them would have gotten in on their own but the rest of them got the tip because of significant family donations either in money or in time.
But I can understand the resentment on CC board—if your family is between $150k-$500k the cost of attending top privates will be a financial pain. And to make the matter worse, at the most sought after top private schools, you are given the lowest priority in admissions, behind all other SESs, like holding a number 6 or 7 on your boarding pass.
I very much disagree with the idea that legacies, full-pays, and donors “take” some kid’s spot who doesn’t pay full, because in order to think that, one would have to be absurd and think that they are somehow entitled and deserving of that acceptance - from my experience, many, if not most, legacies, donors, and full-pay students are qualified, if not even more qualified than those who aren’t.
Without those people, many families (like myself) would be scrambling money to get an education, and I’m confident these people who pay fully after saving up hard earned money or get a boost from donating to the school are really why anyone who can’t afford it otherwise, can even think about applying.
I think this feeling (although rare at my school), usually comes from those who are rejected from the many colleges they hoped to get in on a full (or very well financed) ride. I’m probably susceptible to this sentiment by the end of March, but at the end of the day, a university IS a business and if there are two kids who have similar “stats” but one is able to pay on full, has a legacy status, or has had their family donate, of course the university will take the full pay.
In fact, I think on the Harvard admissions post, it talks about how a huge group (was it a majority?) of students are on financial aid - and many of them paying much less than the market price sticker of their education. This goes with what @lookingforward was also talking about, with the few
A big reason why the very low income students are under represented at top schools, is because being low income is correlated with being in poor school districts, and these low performing schools don’t do a great job of preparing kids for top colleges.
@wisteria100 and the sad fact in our region is that many of these schools have the highest per capita spend per student than most of their public counterparts.
What can be done?
It’s not just throwing more money at the problem.
I believe parental involvement or lack thereof is major issue. My neice is a newly minted, not burnt out teacher, in a lower ses area and her teacher friends are really trying. But they have parental meeting nights and maybe one parent shows up.
They have a real problem with classroom discipline too. They had a teacher walkout recently at an area junior high because the teachers felt unsafe and unable to do anything about it in the class.
Most of the colleges we discuss on here claim to be need blind. Colleges that claim to be need blind should truly be need blind and not favor a full pay kid over a similar stats financial aid kid, just because the former is full pay. It’s not about whether it’s fair for whoever is paying the bills to get more benefit than the low income kid who gets a full FA ride. It’s about following the rules and doing what they say they do.
These numbers sound like guesses. I don’t doubt that some legacies get more benefit than others. For example, one of the previously listed summary sheet comments mentioned verifying that the legacy was involved with “S&S”, which is the Harvard Alumni Schools & Scholarships Committee, implying that S&S alumni are stronger than a typical legacy. Another more explicitly says.
“Dad’s … connections signify lineage of more than usual weight. That counted in to the equation makes this a case which (assuming positive TRs {LORs} and Alum IV {alumni interview}) is well worth doing.”
However, this also does not mean legacies get no benefit unless they are donating $200k+ or a lot of their time. I have no idea about the specific percentages of legacies making large donations, but the SFFA analysis controlled for students on the special interest list, so the specified strong legacy benefit was beyond the strong benefits associated with being special interest list kids. The analysis suggests kids who fell in both the legacy group and the special interest list group (there were many) got a stronger benefit than either alone. Furthermore, if only a small portion of legacies were getting a boost and the rest were getting no benefit, then the already strong boost for the overall legacy total would have to be huge for that small minority to get the same overall magnitude… far beyond any other non-athlete hook. The standard error of the regression coefficient also does not suggest this degree of variation.
“I believe parental involvement or lack thereof is major issue. ”
Agreed, but often it’s not a deliberate choice the parent makes but just a side-effect of life in a low income area. For example, for a single parent working two jobs with other kids to look after too, the time to attend a parent teacher meeting or the cash to pay a sitter may be an unaffordable luxury. Parents may not be that literate so can’t help kids much with schoolwork. Etc.
A big reason why low income kids are underrepresented at highly selective private colleges is most high achieving low income kids do not apply to any selective colleges . The abstract of the study at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2013a_hoxby.pdf begins:
“The main group of “can’t full pay, don’t qualify for financial aid” students are the ones with uncooperative divorced parents, though there presumably are some parents with $250,000+ incomes who do not save any money for kids’ college or anything else.”
Not sure what divorce has to do with it. Lots of parents choose not to pay. In fact divorce is the one situation in which one parent can sue the other to pay for college.
That is not in any way to disagree with the point that one struggles to understand how the calculator could spit out an EFC for full pay, in a situation in which the parents could not actually full pay. It’s not like those calculators are made up out of nowhere. People are just not prepared to make sacrifices.
If by special interest you mean mega donors, et al, they are a small number/year. Not all donors have 17 year olds. But remember, they generally get pre vetted. There’s a lot not obvious when looking at numbers alone.
And pull as a volunteer is not as big as I think some assume. It would need to be a major role over many years.
And I don’t understand why some seem to insist poor kids can’t be accomplished or get parental or school or mentor support. In a number of cases, this is not the first sibling off to college, and just as often, sibs have been to impressive ones. And an overall poor school district can still have very bright lights, the sort you’d want to take advantage of a top college. These kids get their APs in, have scores in range, have impressive ECs. I don’t want to ruffle feathers, but often more meaningful than the LAX camps and little “comm service” at the library.
It helps to look at what some school districts, parochial schools, advantage academies, etc, are out there trying to accomplish. Tippy tops aren’t looking for just some inflated 4.0 that somehow fits diversity wants.
A. The divorcing parents spend money on lawyers.
B. After moving to two households, the cost is collectively higher than as a shared married household.
C. An uncooperative divorced parent effectively prevents financial aid at any college that requires the CSS Noncustodial Profile (which includes most of the good financial aid colleges).
D. Suing the other parent to pay for college costs money and may not get much even if won, since there may not be much money left after lawyers are paid.
About half of children will see parental divorce, many of which are nasty and uncooperative, so this situation is not one of trivial numbers.
That site also claims that spending is generally higher in low poverty districts than in high poverty districts, and generally higher in >75% white districts than in >75% non-white districts, although there are numerous individual exceptions and occasional statewide exceptions: https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion
There appears to be no specific criteria for the “special interest list.” The lawsuit mentions that a student on the special interest list could be related to a donor, could be a kid met at a recruiting event, or could be various other things. In the latest year of the lawsuit, 69% of kids on the Z-list also appeared on the special interest list, and the 2 lists share a very similar racial distribution (primarily White). In any case, there is a notable overlap between special interest list and legacy, and the reasons for that overlap likely go beyond just donations.
@ucbalumnus It varies by region. But money and more money isn’t the solution. It seems to disappear.
Look at the growth in spending over the years and not much progress. Some but not enough. It’s a different set of problems.
Do you know of any meaningful new ideas. I would support just about anything. But people tend to point out how others are wrong versus bringing about change and or new ideas. Or even dialogue. It’s finger pointing and lack of productive communication. I wish the smartest people in country could sit down and work on these things in a non political and non partisan way.
“Not only it was more than twenty years ago but also Kushner’s family was so well connected that Natanyahu literally stayed in Jerad’s room every time he visited the States.”
True, the Kushners also got Ted Kennedy involved who directly contacted Fitzsimmons (dir of Harvard admissions) to get him in. It’s has everything - power, wealth, connections, politics, a great case study. Now I agree that there’s not a ton of Jared Kushners out there, but it does show some part of college admissions work.
“Not sure what divorce has to do with it.”
A lot, as ucb has said many times why, and as any lawyer will you, it’s the number one destroyer of wealth in the US.
Word on the street was JFK wasn’t a NM finalist either. It’s been an issue for a longtime. But sometimes these admits do become something and a point of pride for the school too.
One part of this debate we learned about in a difficult way was during ED. My son applied ED to his top school, certainly had the resume to be admitted and was deferred, like so many others (as we leaned on CC). We understand that applicants from rich and powerful families, and legacies, get advantages, and we get it - that’s how the world works in everything, not just college applications. What we did not like was the misrepresentation schools post when they provide a percent for the ED admission rate, because in reality that number is always inaccurate for students who are not athletes or legacies (who make up a big percent of ED acceptances). For example, if a school says its ED acceptance rate is 33%, the percent for ED applicants who are not legacies or athletes is probably half of that percentage. I wish we knew that in October!