<p>Is it true that low income students are at a disadvantage when applying to schools like Harvard? </p>
<p>And how does being a low-income Asian student play into this? Are Asians at a further disadvantage?</p>
<p>No, that is not true and I have not heard anyone say that. Unless you mean at a disadvantage by not having resources to help their academic and extracurricular enrichment. Because Harvard’s admit rate is so low, chances for anyone are very slim. If your slim chances are a hair over or under someone else’s slim chances what does that really mean to you? Will you do something different? Pick different colleges to apply to? </p>
<p>What is the issue here for you personally?</p>
<p>I was reading CC threads about this topic and I came upon this particular one <a href=“Early Action hurts low-income applicants? - Applying to College - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/241791-early-action-hurts-low-income-applicants.html</a>
where one person says, “What Harvard seems to be really saying is that they consistently find a lot more applications from appealing lower income students in their RD than in their EA pool. So they are concerned that they have too few slots left for these students once they have completed their ED admits. One response is to eliminate EA. The other is to really do what they claim- only admit early those who they would definitely admit RD. If this claim were really true, then eliminating EA could not have any effect on who gets in. If it is not true, then the alternate solution would be to reduce the numbers admitted early. Cut it to say 10% of the entering class, and reserve the remainder of the slots for RD.”</p>
<p>and also, “It isn’t an opinion that EA is harmful to the disadvantaged. It is a fact. Very, very few disadvantaged students apply EA. Since most of the time, EA takes a larger % of appllicants, leaving less spaces for those applying regularly, any group of students not applying EA are getting the disadvantage.”</p>
<p>That is only one person’s opinion. ED usually gives high income students an advantage because they don’t need to compare FA offers. That’s not true for EA.</p>
<p>The person in that quoted post meant that EA is “harmful to the disadvantaged” because low-income or first generation high school students typically do not know to apply early and do not think about college early enough. If you have the stats for the school and get everything ready on time, applying early shows your interest in the school. It’s a plus! </p>
<p>Growing up in a low-income household gives you life experiences and points of view that other applicants do not have, thus making you a more interesting and attractive candidate. At a school where most students come from well-off and well educated parents, you offer diversity to the student body. Being low income IS disadvantage at many schools that are tight on funding and are “need aware”, but this does not apply to the very selective private schools with large endowments. </p>
<p>This is a 2006 thread. The FA policies at Harvard were a lot different in 2006 from now. </p>
<p>Harvard does not participate in Questbridge which means they are recruiting low income candidates directly. They are recruiting a large number of qualified minorities in SCEA. Since admissions are need blind that part does not necessarily play a large role in determining whether one is admitted. </p>