New pet peeve: test optional at top schools

Parents Forum
847

Yet wages have remained flat or dropped.

Family income has increased in many families because now there are two workers per family.

So, what these statistics are actually saying is that, for middle class families, two people working together are now making only 29% more than a single person was making back in the late 1960s…

Also, in the late 1960, the average number of hours than a person worked per week was about 41 hours. Nowadays it is over 45 hours.

So, for something like 150% to more than 200% more work time, families are now making 29% more money than they did in 1968.

Of course that means that the fact that families have two cars is not because of increased prosperity, but because that is a basic requirement, since families have two people going to work. That also means higher expenses for childcare, which the authors of the report seem to ignore as well. Of course, health care has become a lot more expensive, more so than inflation.

So people are working many more hours for not much more money, and a lot of that money goes to compensate for the fact that they need to work those hours. That is not an increase in prosperity, and not a realistic increase in income.

If the income that families have today were the result of having one working adult per household, AND that person was working the same hours as in 1968, AND the expenses per household were the same, in THAT case, families would be better off today than they were in 1968.

Basically, when they adjust for inflation, they do not adjust for the extra expenses incurred by having two parents working.

A family whose income is in most of the mid income deciles in the USA has a quality of life equal or lower than that of a person of the same decile in 1968. Only people in the top deciles have a better quality of life, though many people there are working many more hours than they did in the 1960s as well.

Only in families for which childcare and healthcare expenses are not a large part of their income have seen a real income increase. Since those expanses tend to be a lot flatter than everything else, that means, as usual, the only people who have actually enjoyed a real increase in income, are the people at the top. It also explains why their share of the accumulated wealth in the USA has increase - unlike the rest of the country, they now have even more money to save and invest.

2 Likes
848

The “it” in that quote is “real family income.” I was responding to your claim that it had been stagnant since the late 1960s, pointing out that it doesn’t make any sense, since families have so much more, and higher quality, material goods than they did 50 years ago.

Now it appears that you are taking an entirely different position – not that real family income has remained stagnant since the late 1960s, but rather that it has increased due to two-income families. While that certainly accounts for an increase in the 1970 - 1990 period, there has been little increase in two-income families in thirty years (see https://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2012-2/)

According to the BLS, the average private sector worker works between 34 and 35 hours per week: Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted - 2023 M11 Results

That’s down from approximately 37 hours in 1970: Average Weekly Hours of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private (AWHNONAG) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

On top of all that, the average family has fewer people now than 50 years ago – according to the Census Bureau, average household size dropped from 3.14 in 1970 to 2.53 in 2020. Since household size has shrunk by 20%, even if it were true that real family income had remained stagnant (note that the inflation calculations do a notoriously poor job of accounting for increases in quality or functionality of goods – cars now with antilock brakes, air bags, adaptive cruise control, etc.) the per person income would be higher.

In short, now is the best time to be a middle income person in the U.S., compared to all previous periods.

849

It sounds like the 68% wealthy / 4% poor quote is from the Chetty study at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/papers/coll_mrc_paper.pdf , which most people know from the NYT article and interactive college look up at Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours. - The New York Times .

The Chetty study is based on tax records of income, but it was not recent. The sample used in the NYT is article is for the class of 2013. Some colleges have had significant changes in the decade since then. Chetty also divides students in to income quintiles. The lower income group is bottom 20%. The $65k threshold mentions on Harvard’s website is near the median US household income. It may be lower income compared to typical Harvard students, but it is not lower income compare to typical US households. They are looking at different groups. Chetty found the following median income distribution among students at “Ivy Plus” colleges, which includes Ivies, MIT, Duke, and Chicago.

Median Income (in 2020 dollars) – $196,000
17% of students from top 1% income ($700k in 2020 dollars) (17x overrpresentation)
68% of students from top 5% income ($122k in 2020 dollars) (14x overrepresentation)
4% of students from bottom 20% income ($22k in 2020 dollars) (5x underrepresentation)

2 Likes
850

Where did you read that and/or which schools are you referring to? Many of the “Ivy plus” schools referenced above are some of the most affordable colleges in the US for typical middle class families (after FA). Some specific numbers from Harvard’s NPC are below, assuming 1 kid in college and “typical” assets.

$65k Income — $0 Cost to Parents (47th percentile income)
$80k Income — $2k Cost to Parents (56th percentile income)
$100k Income — $5k Cost to Parents (65th percentile income)
$120k Income — $8k Cost to Parents (73rd percentile income)
$150k Income — $15k Cost to Parents (81st percentile income)

851

I read it here. Of course the definition of “middle class” really varies and may not align itself with your definition (or mine, for that matter).

852

I guess that you haven’t been listening to the news for a year now…

But, ignoring the pandemic, and its effects on the middle class.

So, for 2018-2019, annual income of $68,703 annually (USA Median). After deducting Federal and State income tax (I chose VA since the taxes there are the USA median), the family has $ 51,998. Median property tax in Virginia - $1,862, leaving the family with $50,136. Median housing costs for mortgaged house is $1,566 a month, or $18,792 a year, leaving the family with $31,344. Average payments on a used car (despite your claims of ownership of Stuff is common, I assume that this family is frugal) is $381 a month, or $4,572, leaving the family with $26,772, and gas costs another $1,000, leaving $25,772. Families in the middle quantile spend about $8,000 for food, leaving $17,772. For normal health costs (not including things like orthodontist or serious medical conditions), they spend $8,000, leaving $9,772. Another $2,000 is spent on clothing, leaving $7,772. Average repairs on car (it is used, so no coverage) $397, so $7,375. Average maintenance costs for a house (they don’t have median) are around $2,000, so now the family has $5,375. Another $700 for school supplies, leaves the family with $4,675. Since it is the 21st century, and for work and school, a family needs internet, and, according to the WSJ, the median monthly cost for standalone service is $66 a month, so $792 a year, so the family now has $3,883. The family likely needs at least one computer, so we will actually go cheaper, and say $700 for a low priced desktop+ screen, or a low prices laptop. The family now has $3,183.

So far, nothing for entertainment, nothing for saving, nothing for pension, no emergencies, no paying back of student loans, no initial cost for house appliances, no debt, no big emergencies. No cell phones or computers for the kids, no toys for the kids, no cell phones for the adults, no TV, no eating out, no ordering in, nothing. The kids also do not get music or any after school activities, nor do they participate in any school trips or activities. That’s also assuming that, somehow, they don’t have to pay back the median $15,600 that they needed for a down payment for the house.

If they want any of those, they have the grand total of $265 a month, assuming that the pipes didn’t burst, they are not taking their kid to the orthodontist, nobody got really sick, they don’t want to go anywhere at all, say to visit their parents, nothing.

Oh. their kid won’t be going to college, unless they take out loans they cannot afford. After all, the only colleges where they can attend for free are colleges that are out of reach if the kids have no ability to do anything to put on their resume.

This is what a “mid income” family’s life looks like.

3 Likes
853

The referenced paper is at https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/coll_mrc_qje_paper.pdf . It reports the following distribution of families incomes at Ivy+ colleges. The lower the income, the less likely the student is to attend an Ivy+ college. It’s true that actual middle income students are underrepresented, but lower income students are even more severely underrepresented than middle income students.

Income Distribution at Ivy+ Colleges
Top 20% Income – 68% of Ivy+ Students
Upper 60-80th Income – 13% of Ivy+ Students
Middle 40-60th Income – 8% of Ivy+ Students
Lower 20-40th Income – 6% of Ivy+ Students
Bottom 20% Income – 4% of Ivy+ Students

A similar pattern occurred for other types of colleges, but to a lesser extent. For example the income distribution at “highly selective publics” was as follows. Again the lower the income, the less likely students are to attend, but there is a much more widely varying income distribution than at Ivy+ colleges. The majority of students at “highly selective publics” were middle 60% income compared to only 27% at Ivy+ colleges.

Income Distribution at “Highly Selective Public” Colleges
Top 20% Income – 39% of Students
Upper 60-80th Income – 25% of Students
Middle 40-60th Income – 18% of Students
Lower 20-40th Income – 11% of Students
Bottom 20% Income – 7% of Students

The reference about middle being more underrpresented than lower income relates to controlling for SAT scores. Extremely few lower income students had very high SAT scores, but those rare few lower income students with very high SAT scores were more likely to attend Ivy+ colleges than middle income students with the same very high score. Some example numbers are below. Cost to parent is based on NPC assume income near middle of range.

Portion of Kids Scoring 1500+ SAT Score Attending Ivy+ Colleges by Income
Top 1% Income – 62% (Harvard costs ~$77k to parents)
Top 5% Income – 50% (Harvard costs ~$77k to parents)
Top 20% Income – 40% (Harvard costs ~$40k to parents)
Upper 60-80th Income – 24% (Harvard costs ~$6k to parents)
Middle 40-60th Income – 23.5% (Harvard costs ~$<1k to parents)
Lower 20-40th Income – 28% (Harvard costs ~$0 to parents)
Bottom 20% Income – 31% (Harvard costs ~$0 to parents)

I expect this has very little to do with Ivy+ colleges being more affordable for kids in bottom 20% income of (less than <$25k) than near median income (near $65k). Instead I expect it has more to do with the rare few lower income kids who score 1500+ having unique characteristics, such as often attending magnet schools, with parents/peers/friends/GCs/teachers… who are often focused on applying to and attending Ivy+ colleges.

4 Likes
854

You realize that the data was during a pandemic during a period when people’s hours, and pay, were being cut. But perhaps it is the same as it was in 2019

However, according to this release by BLS, full time workers in 2019 worked, on average, 8.5 hours a workday, or 42.5 hours a week, while part time workers worked 5.58 hours a day, or 27.9 hours a week.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/american-time-use/emp-by-ftpt-job-edu-h.htm

There is also this from 2014, so it may be dated:

Also, the average includes part-timers who increased from 14% in 1965 to 20% in 2020.

855

And what did it look like 50 years ago? How about 100 years ago?

That said, your calculations are wildly off. A family of four, married filing jointly, with $68,703 in income would have standard deductions of $24,800, leaving taxable income of $43,903. At that income level, with two children under age 17, they would be eligible for $4,000 in child tax credits. The total federal income tax due (after accounting for the child credits) would be $873. Of course, this family would have to pay social security and medicare tax, totaling $5,256, and as far as I can tell, Virginia income tax would be at most $3,024 (there may be Virginia deductions or credits I’m not aware of). Thus, the after-tax income of this family would be $59,550, about $7500 more than your estimate.

Here’s a pretty good tax calculator if you are interested:

I could quibble with other parts of your calculation (e.g., I’m pretty sure they don’t need to buy a computer every year; also, since 67% of American families own their home, the middle quintile in income is not, in fact, on average buying the median-priced home – those median-priced homes would be purchased by the second-highest income quintile – so your estimates for housing cost and property tax are too high), but more broadly there seems to a collective amnesia in this country about what life was like in the late 60s and early 70s. Here’s an example from 1960, which is slightly earlier but close enough to make the point:

“In 1960, an average American household spent over 10 percent of its income on clothing and shoes - equivalent to roughly $4,000 today. The average person bought fewer than 25 garments each year . . . Fast forward half a century.
Today, the average American household spends less than 3.5 percent of its budget on clothing and shoes - under $1,800. Yet, we buy more clothing than ever before: nearly 20 billion garments a year, close to 70 pieces of clothing per person, or more than one clothing purchase per week.” Why America Stopped Making Its Own Clothes - The Lowdown

Turning to housing, the average size of a new home built in the U.S. rose from 1,660 square feet in 1973 (the earliest year available from the Census) to 2,687 square feet in 2015, and, due to smaller household size, the square feet per person doubled. New US Homes Today Are 1,000 Square Feet Larger Than in 1973 and Living Space per Person Has Nearly Doubled | American Enterprise Institute - AEI Yes, I realize the average family is not necessarily buying a new home, but the underlying point that the space per person in the U.S. has vastly increased holds true.

The middle quintile of household car ownership now has two cars per household. 1970 it had one car. https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/usaownershipcars/
And of course the cars now, even if used and 10 years old, far exceed the cars of 1970 in safety, conveniences, gas mileage and more.

The list could go on – air conditioning, household appliances, etc.

I do think that you and I agree that life for a family of four on a median income in the U.S. is often a struggle. We just disagree about whether there was some golden age when life was a lot easier for that middle quintile. I don’t think so. In terms of material goods, I think the average American is better off than ever.

856

While I don’t think that there was ever a golden age, I do think that things have gotten worse, economically, for middle class families, at least since the 1970s.

That is about where we stand, and that is where we will likely stand in another 5 or 10 posts each. So rather than drag this out, we should likely end it here, and let the thread continue on the original topic.

2 Likes
857

I lived overseas for 14 years and most of us here in the US have much more “stuff” than most places…life here is very good even for those who think they are in really bad shape.

2 Likes
858

This was a very interesting read with a lot of data. A very sobering caption to me is:

“About four in 10 students from the top 0.1 percent attend an Ivy League or elite university, roughly equivalent to the share of students from poor families who attend any two- or four-year college.”

It’s definitely easy for kids born to wealthy families to have a safety net (and more).

3 Likes
859

My guess is Americans also would tend to have more debt. We’re a very materialistic society, but not so good at saving for emergencies or retirement. In some (not all) other countries there are higher taxes providing for emergencies, etc - more or less forcing folks to “save” for them.

860

On these forums, there seem to be many “middle class no financial aid” people complaining that the “high cost of living” makes it hard to save for their kids’ college, even though their incomes are two or three times the median.

Seems that spending on more “stuff” (beyond getting out of actual poverty) does not seem to make people much happier. So people feel that they are on the rat race to nowhere.

But then some people are facing job obsolescence, and that retraining for new jobs can take longer than the time jobs can go obsolete.

861

Perhaps the greater risk of becoming poor through some financial setback (e.g. unexpected medical bill) contributes to the feeling of financial insecurity that many in the US have.

4 Likes
862

I am curious - where did you obtain your experience of people “who think that the are really in bad shape” from? I would expect that being homeless and hungry is not a good life for anybody, no?

In any case, unless you are a researcher of poverty, and have actually spent time with poor people both overseas and in the USA, you are only providing your limited perception, not fact nor reality.

Just so you understand, I did not grow up the USA and have spent time in some pretty messed up areas, including a war zones, so I have a comparison. I also have visited some pretty empty houses in the USA, so I also know what poverty looks like here, at least in passing. My wife is an immigrant, so I have her shared experience as well.

1 Like
863

Definitely not a researcher of poverty but I have significant experience with folks/family in the US and abroad that while are not currently homeless are what we would all think of as very poor. And living overseas for 14 years starting when I was 26 is a bit different than growing up somewhere else.

In one country I lived in I would walk by an organization for handicapped persons every day. It was located in a basement down a pretty steep set of stairs. It would be a tough place to be disabled to say the least. The sidewalks were full of holes and were not even but I imagine this was a small hurdle compared to many others they face daily.

In the US, there are orgs and churches that help the homeless and hungry that I do not believe exist in many of the areas I lived, but there were strong family ties and perhaps it was easier to be poor as most everyone was in a similar situation at the time.

Starting salary for the recent college grads we were hiring was typically about $400/month for a job that was oftentimes 70-80 hours/week. In almost every case, these were the top or only earners in their household. The ones we hired were definitely the lucky ones.

If it means anything, my wife is also an immigrant from one of the countries I lived/worked in.

3 Likes
864

Steering the tangent back to the original topic about test optional, the linked study lists the following SAT distribution by income level. It looks like the majority of high school students who have a SAT score that is within the 25/75th range for the “top schools” that are referred to in the original post type are from the top 20% income quintile. Extremely few are from the bottom half of the income distribution. Even dropping down to the 1300-1390 range, half are from the top income quintile and only 10.8% are from the two lower income quintiles. However, most other admission metrics are not as strongly overrepresented among high income students . For example, having a high HS GPA is well distributed across different income levels. This is suggestive that the income distribution of admitted students may have significant changes for the class of 2025.

1500+ SAT Income Distribution – 0.6% of all college goers
54% are in top 20% income
20% are in upper 60-80th percentile income
16% are in middle 40-60th percentile income
6.8% are in lower 20-40th percentile income
2.6% are in bottom 20% income

1400-1490 SAT Income Distribution – 3.1% of all college goers
48% are in top 20% income
27% are in upper 60-80th percentile income
13% are in middle 40-60th percentile income
7.2% are in lower 20-40th percentile income
5.1% are in bottom 20% income

1300-1390 SAT Income Distribution – 7.2% of all college goers
49% are in top 20% income
25% are in upper 60-80th percentile income
14% are in middle 40-60th percentile income
7.1% are in lower 20-40th percentile income
3.7% are in bottom 20% income

4 Likes
865

From your other posts, it seems that our wives are from the same country. I’ve been in worse places, though.

Again, you talk about “not currently homeless”, and “are what we all think of as poor”, and that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about the millions who ARE homeless, who are also included in what you claim that “life here is very good even for those who think they are in really bad shape.” I am talking about the over 50,000 kids who, in 2017, were living in places like cars and abandoned buildings and were still going to school. Then there were the almost 190,000 in shelters. There were over 211,000 people living in the streets in 2019, and another 356,000 in places like homeless shelters. In about 5.3 million households, people were not eating enough because of poverty. I’m not saying “eating badly” or “eating cheaply”, but missing meals regularly.

I mean, how freaking bad does it have to be for a person before you will admit that they are, indeed, in “really bad shape”?

866

This is getting a bit off topic, but…

It makes sense to compare with other developed countries. You could compare with basic high income or middle income countries but then you’re just saying it’s better to live in a rich country than in a poor country. Living in Nigeria is better on average than living in Mali, doesn’t make Nigeria a good country to live in on average. Then compare Nigeria to Egypt: well, yes, the standard of living is better in Egypt, but does it make sense to compare life in the US in these 4 countries, unless you want to be sure you find the US on top?
So, when comparing standards of living, we would compare comparable countries. Our peers are Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Western and Central Europe.

Then we would look at the standard of living enjoyed by the middle class (a strong, stable middle class is a characterizing feature in high income countries) in all these countries zs well as the US, then deviation from the norm in the US and another one.
Poverty is both absolute (living on $2/day=unable to fill basic survival needs of food, shelter, etc) and relative (being below the level that is the norm in your given country).
When the norm is reliable broadband internet access, not having it is a problem. When almost no one has a smartphone it doesn’t matter (compare Kenya with Namibia for instance, for 2 countries with different norms.)

We can also look at this group in terms of democracy (respect for democratic norms, elections, freedom of the press, freedom of religion/expression/opinion, political violence or lack thereof, official/systemic discriminations against one or more groups in that society).

It boggles my mind that there are areas without drinking water in the US, for instance. Not because there are areas without drinking water in many countries, but because the US being the richest country in the world should have been able to fix that 50 years ago when all other developed rich countries did. It doesn’t mean most of us can’t enjoy running water or that in Egypt or China you dont find areas without.
However Americans enjoy far more democratic freedoms than Chinese or Egyptian nationals in their country.

Not sure how “Test optional and elite schools” got there.
One direct, negative effect for elite schools is that it took them longer to go through the applications: Ivy Day was pushed to April 6. MIT stuck to pi day though.

2 Likes