<p>Sorry, that part on affording critical thinking skills was a bit poorly worded. I was just trying to get at the general consensus that those at higher income levels due tend to perform better on tests that are supposed to demonstrate one’s critical and analytical thinking skills.</p>
<p>Alexissss, that applies to what we’re saying. The fact that you got into that school and are hopefully doing well in the school despite the likely social pressures and disadvantages of a low income. I am below the poverty line, but hopefully they factor that in just enough to make my dreams reality.</p>
<p>It depends more on the circumstances behind the income and poverty than just the fact that you’re income is below a certain level.</p>
<p>For many folks at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, there’s not much Harvard can do for them.</p>
<p>There are all sorts of different folks who are low-income. No overarching generalization about poorer folks does justice to the variety of circumstances and conditions in which folks live. Lower income doesn’t always equate to “disadvantaged.” But it does equate to disadvantaged far more frequently than it does among higher income folks.</p>
<p>More children who grow up in poverty or near-poverty also grow up in environments that aren’t conducive to intellectual development, growth and maturation, or academic achievement. A higher proportion of poor and near-poor children grow up in environments where things like books, magazines and newspapers (or, in this era, personal computers with Internet access) aren’t as common or available. Often, their parents are not well-educated, and the vocabulary levels to which they’re exposed in day-to-day home life are lower.</p>
<p>For children like this, intellectual development can be negatively affected, and sometimes on a permanent basis.</p>
<p>Folks have tried to overcome these effects on children thusly affected through programs like Head Start, and although such programs seem to have a positive effect in the short run, it appears that by the middle of elementary school, for many, the positive effects fade significantly.</p>
<p>As well, many poor children don’t have access to good school systems, a condition that can result in even wider achievement gaps. Even poor children who are fortunate enough to get to go to decent schools still may need to overcome deficits in their home environment.</p>
<p>For different combinations of reasons, by the time these children grow up to be high school seniors, they may not have the academic achievement, the intellectual development, or even the necessary cognitive development to succeed at an Ivy, or at other top-tier universities and colleges.</p>
<p>Whether it’s fair or not, whether one likes it or not, you need to know a certain amount of stuff by the time you’re ready for college to get into top-tier schools. Even if a student’s cognitive development wasn’t adversely affected by growing up in poverty in a suboptimal home environment, if the kid gets to his senior year without having had the opportunities to take college preparatory classes, he or she isn’t likely to succeed at a school like Harvard.</p>
<p>My wife works in the registration office of a community college. I’m sure that many of the students she sees have significant intellectual ability, but many (not all by any means) are there precisely because the primary and secondary education afforded them didn’t really prepare them for a college curriculum, and it’s necessary for them to take college prep courses to get to the point where it makes sense for them to take college-level courses. Many of these students come from lower-income families.</p>
<p>It’s just not Harvard’s fault that this happens. Nor is it Harvard’s job to fix the problem. No institution can be all things to all people.</p>
<p>That there are folks from lower income groups admitted to Harvard suggests that Harvard makes a diligent - and successful - effort to find the students who, in spite of their difficult circumstances growing up, are capable of the challenge of a top-tier school. Kudos to Harvard.</p>
<p>I’m a gap year kid, btw. So if I did moderately well in this school, will I still be thought of as disadvantaged? Or will my schools assume I’m lying about my SES in my essays? As it stands, poverty, homelessness and evictions have severely hampered my grades and what ECs I was able to do. Will colleges believe this? Or will they assume I’m exaggerating because I didn’t go to an inner city school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@Dwight: You attend Harvard. You are already a snob. ^_^</p>
<p>@notjoe: You’re quite right. Which is why I’m sometimes skeptical of affirmative action programs when applied to higher education. It becomes a band-aid to a larger, deeper problem and allows for policy makers to shirk from their responsibilities of experimenting/researching/developing better and more efficient ways to address societal inequality. </p>
<p>I went to a relatively bad, large urban high school. With a few exceptions, my experience at the school was abysmal. I survived academically in part because my parents are relatively well-educated; my mom got me started on alg problems well before I took the class in 8th grade and ditto with calc. Even then, my actual calc class in hs was so terrible the only reason why I managed to do well was because I bought a SparkNotes prep kit about 2 weeks before the actual test and crammed. Most of the other kids in my class didn’t have a chance. Don’t forget, this is an AP class. It represents maybe the top 4-5% of the entire graduating class. </p>
<p>Many of my HS classmates were African American or Hispanic/Latino. When I was at Harvard, I also knew a few AA and L classmates/friends. They were most definitely not representative of those I knew from HS. I’m almost certain that only a very, very small sliver of the AA and L student body at Harvard attended an inner city high school. </p>
<p>I tend to like ways that try to address the problem at a much earlier age–i.e. like Head Start. But those programs have their limits as you mentioned.</p>
<p>Alexissss, I highly doubt they will think you’re exaggerating. Especially with evictions and homelessness. What school you go to is a factor, but there are many more significant ones to (home environment and other such things). Outside of the financial aid process though, they’ll only pick them up if you convey them in some way in your app (most likely through the essay or additional info).</p>
<p>“As it stands, poverty, homelessness and evictions have severely hampered my grades and what ECs I was able to do. Will colleges believe this? Or will they assume I’m exaggerating because I didn’t go to an inner city school?”</p>
<p>@alexissss: Admissions will look to your guidance counselor’s report and teacher recommendations for confirmation about your home environment and whatever you wrote in your essay. So long as your new school is aware of your situation, and mentioned it in some fashion, it should not be an issue. If Admissions needs additional information, I have known them to pick-up the phone and call a high school’s guidance department or college office and speak directly with them.</p>
<p>I only mentioned these things in my essays. I never confided in my GC or teacher because, quite frankly, it would have been rather awkward. The admin at my hs had already snobbed me when they saw I changed my home address twice (never got my report card after sophomore year because I moved so much and didn’t want to keep changing the address). Only a few friends know of my home situation. Mer.</p>
<p>If you applied for a fee waiver for your SAT/ACT test, AP tests, college applications or for filing the CSS Profile, your guidance counselor should at least know about your family’s financial situation.</p>
<p>I understand what Alexissss says about the whole awkward part. I go to a public school, but it’s a wealthy area. It took me a while to open up about thing with my GC and one of my teachers, but I’m really glad I did. My teacher and I had great convos and probably got a whole new perspective on me as a person before doing his recommendation.</p>
<p>@gibby
Great! Thanks for that info. I forgot all about the fee waivers. :P</p>
<p>@newyork
I’m glad you were able to open up! I’m an intensely private person and I detest being derided more than anything for my ses. I’d die if one of my favorite teachers found out, lol. The GC knowing is fine, though. She’s…similar to me in a way.</p>
<p>I can understand. My teacher had a similar, “humble” background. I definitely didnt find it easy, but once I got past a few sentences, walls came down and things got rolling into a conversation. You probably don’t need to worry about it now though as much since you took a gap year and already applied.</p>
<p>@newyork
That’s awesome!</p>
<p>I suppose. I just wanted to ensure that schools don’t misjudge me based upon what hs I attended. :3</p>
<p>@msincredible: Someone just private messaged me with similar question to your original one, so I’m posting the question and my answer to your thread.</p>
<p>QUESTION:
Does being a low income applicant provide any “hook” or advantage in the admissions process? I’m talking below 20k. And if the answer is yes, how much of an advantage does it provide compared to URM and legacy?</p>
<p>ANSWER:
You are asking a very complicated question and I can only guess at what happens during the admissions process. </p>
<p>Harvard looks for academic potential and admits students without regard to financial need, so they DO NOT look at your ability to pay when reviewing your application. During the first round of admissions (the regional round), Harvard is NEED BLIND – it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever if you come from a family that makes 20K or 200K or 2000K – they just don’t look at financial information when deciding who makes “the first cut.” What they are looking for is academic potential, regardless of income level.</p>
<p>After that, I suspect other factors come in to play. </p>
<p>Admissions needs to reconcile who they are interested in versus their yearly budget. During the final rounds, in early December for SCEA, and in late March for RD, when comparing students, I suspect Harvard must look at applications in terms of who IS NOT applying for financial aid. </p>
<p>Every year, Harvard needs to accept about 30% to 35% of students who can pay full-fare in order to be able to meet their financial aid budget for students in-need. I imagine those full-paying students, many of whom are from oversees, are looked at first. </p>
<p>Once Harvard has decided upon their full-fare paying students, they look to everyone else. I suspect everyone then is on the same level playing field. So you are basically back to where you started: Harvard will evaluate you based upon your academic potential, without regard to financial need. </p>
<p>That said, if a student writes an essay, such as Dawn Loggins must have done, and has teachers who can attest to their academic potential, I imagine that will put the applicant at the very top of the Admissions Committee’s “admit list.”</p>
<p>Harvard admits about 4% at the bottom socio-economic quintile, and so, regardless of the number of poor applicants, that 4% is not doing much to displace you (also some of these students have other hooks, like URM or athletics). </p>
<p>Here is an article by Thomas Espenshade of Princeton addressing the miniscule amount of such displacement (also addresses displacement by AA, legacies, and athletes).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf[/url]”>http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/Opportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also, colleges typically give less weight to low socio-economic status than to URM status. Some educational critics like Richard Kahlenberg of Cornell have decried this and argued much more weight should be given to lower socio-economic status than URM status, but this has not made much headway at the colleges yet. </p>
<p>A look at the make-up of Harvard’s student body (and also Princeton’s but less so), highlights the URM preference for AA and Hispanics. But this preference pales in comparison to the number of Jewish students at Harvard. They make-up half of the Caucasian students and have for the past decade For an article questioning this, see a piece by Ron Unz. </p>
<p><a href=“http://theamericanconservative.com/pdf/The%20Myth%20of%20American%20Meritocracy-Unz.pdf[/url]”>http://theamericanconservative.com/pdf/The%20Myth%20of%20American%20Meritocracy-Unz.pdf</a></p>
<p>The make-up of Harvard’s class (including internationals) in past years (the last decade or so) has been about 25% Caucasian (non-Jewish), 25% Jewish, 20% Asian, 12% AA, and 12% Spanish, with the remainder either not reporting their race or American Indian (tiny percentage). </p>
<p>Princeton’s breakdown has more racial variance over the last decade with less AA, Spanish, and Jewish, and more Asian and white (non-Jewish).</p>