<p>The money quote "Despite their image as meritocratic beacons of opportunity, the selective colleges serve less as vehicles of upward mobility than as transmitters of privilege from generation to generation."</p>
<p>I think that if one is using college strictly as a means of social mobility, they're missing out on a lot. The hard thing for universities is that the university as an institution (at least, in the old, elite colleges... lets say the AAU) is not designed to directly support society but society is expected to directly support these institutions. </p>
<p>The learning and research at universities is, in theory, occurring for more pure motives than to give students the ability to make more money, it is designed instead to foster great minds, encourage maturation, intellectualize, create life-long learners, and empower its students to be an asset to the world community. These things may lead to better jobs and upward social mobility, but that's an ancillary effect.</p>
<p>That being said, I'm a junior, so I can't be sure how effective it has/will be on my friends in terms of social mobility. My university does not tend to inspire people to go out and be money makers, however, and many of my friends are considering careers that won't likely significantly change their social class. Those who came here rich, contrary to popular conception, seem to me more likely to chose paths to continue their lifestyle, and those who come from middle class seem to be more likely to choose things they find personally meaningful. That's across a small cross section of my own observation and of course has many exceptions, so I'm not really sure how sound that assessment is.</p>
<p>Nice succinct article, but not too much new there.</p>
<p>I liked his last paragraph though:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Last, and not least, by undermining the dubious assumption that the applicants admitted are those with the most merit, a lottery* might promote a certain measure of humility — a quality in short supply in the upper rungs of the “meritocracy” — among admission officers and students alike.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(Previosly in the article he suggests a lottery system for a small percentage of academically qualified students.)</p>
<p>He ignores the fact that many poorer/working class students might opt to go to to their excellent state U and graduate with little or no debt.<br>
At the state med school I work for, many brilliant med students are here (rather than at Hopkins, Harvard, Penn, etc.) because the tuition is affordable.</p>
<p>Part of the allure of an elite college is the myth that ad com's at such places have selected out potential future leaders. An admission lottery, even at 10%, will do away with the myth, and such colleges will no longer be "elite". </p>
<p>Furthermore, if you do your math, you will conclude that a lottery will increase the total number of applicants, perhaps to a number that will incapacitate the ad com.</p>
<p>As to Mr. Karabel's policy suggestion, I would like to give Harvard, Princeton, and the U of Virginia a few years to show what they can do by way of affirmative action for the disadvantaged now that all three universities have eliminated their early round admission programs. Those universities will be recruiting students heavily in low-income areas in November while "peer" institutions process early round admission files. </p>
<p>The joint travel program of those three universities is part of a broader effort by the admission offices of all three of them to encourage applications by low-income, disadvantaged students. </p>
<p>Has anybody even bothered to look at the demand side of this equation? How many poor/working class/first generation college students are even interested in going to a highly selective college?</p>
<p>I have a theory about the college admissions frenzy--my theory is that it is driven by the age old parental instinct to secure a better life for your child than you yourself had. It's the American Dream. The baby boom is the first generation that more or less took college for granted--we are the ones where middle class students went to a state school. Now that our kids are applying to college, we have a vague sense that we want something "better" for our kids and U.S. News is happy to sell a bunch of magazines that tell us what "better" is. </p>
<p>If nobody in your family has ever been to college, then the local commuter U. or state U. is going to look pretty darn good--affordable, close to home so as to keep the student in touch with family, and not so socially intimidating. </p>
<p>It is kind of elitist and insulting if you think about it to assume that only Harvard is "good enough." It is stupid too, when you look at all of the highly productive and positive members of our society who went to an unranked school.</p>
<p>Mombot raises the good point that to a lot of high school students, the issue of attending college or not seems a lot more important than the issue of attending this college rather than that one. There are a lot of college choices for any student who completes high school, and some even for those who drop out of high school, so it shouldn't look anomalous that not every high school graduate applies to a "top tier" college. </p>
<p>But Karabel's point, and I think this is an important point too, is that currently colleges in that top tier have actual admission results contrary to what they say their admission policies are. That is, the colleges say they will cut a break to a student who comes from a poor background and DOES apply to that college, and not expect such a student to have the same level of admission factors (grades, test scores, extracurricular achievements) as a student from a wealthy family. But despite this stated policy, the Bowen study suggested that, controlling for other factors, students from poor families were held to quite the same standards as students from rich families--which to my mind makes it hard for them to have the opportunity to show what they can do if they enter a college environment where everyone shares the same on-campus resources. </p>
<p>As I wrote above, I think letting Harvard, Princeton, and Virginia show a way to gain more low-income students by "affirmative action" in the right sense of that term is a better policy suggestion than instituting an explicit lottery for admission to any of the top tier colleges. But the great thing about American higher education is that it is pluralistic, and if some other college has some other plan for seeking out and admitting low-income students, it is welcome to try it out.</p>
<p>I surprised you fell for the H&P spinmeisters. I predicted that the elimination of ED will have nearly zero affect in the SES makeup of the private schools. UVa is a different matter, since it was totally embarrased a couple of years when it publicly acknowledged that it had less than ~7% Pell Grantees, and was in essence, a bastion of privelege.</p>
<p>Taking a look at the California visits by Princeton makes it quite clear: there ain't no recruiting goin' down in the inner cities.</p>
<p>Hi, bluebayou, you are making a testable prediction: </p>
<p>
[quote]
I predicted that the elimination of ED will have nearly zero affect in the SES makeup of the private schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We'll see what happens in a while at the three nationally known universities that have gone to a single-deadline system from ED or from SCEA. I don't think I would make the same prediction, but how much effect is "nearly zero effect"--in other words, how much effect is more than just random year-by-year variation? </p>
<p>You also wrote, </p>
<p>
[quote]
Taking a look at the California visits by Princeton makes it quite clear: there ain't no recruiting goin' down in the inner cities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Having been to some of those locations in California, I'd have to agree with you that the announced locations for information sessions (there is one location not yet announced, and perhaps more locations to be added) are not in conspicuously low-SES places. I suppose the four locations in West Virginia were mostly lobbied for by the U of Virginia. In some of the urban locations I note in the Midwest and South, one could get good catchment of low-income students, especially if transportation to the meeting is provided to the students. Public transportation is LOUSY here in Minnesota, so Harvard sends a signal every year (and MIT most years) by putting on information sessions in inner-city neighborhoods reachable by the city bus system.</p>
<p>Token, you are of course correct. A 1-2% increase in low income kids can be huge as a % of a % (and will receive full page articles in the NYT, and Globe). But, a 1% increase is not very material, and could have easily been achieved under the former early policies if the schools chose to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
especially if transportation to the meeting is provided to the students...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>hahahahahaha</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard sends a signal every year...by putting on information sessions in inner-city neighborhoods...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not so in California at least last time I looked, but that was two years ago... </p>
<p>IMO, the results from the public UVa should not be compared to the results from the two privates, since it is in their State interest to at least move towards a par with other state Unis (UMich, UNC) with regards to low income kids (Pell Grantees).</p>
<p>You are suggesting that there are some "no-brainer" things that some (many?) colleges could do in California to enhance recruitment of low-income students. I have no reason to disagree that there is more that could be done.</p>
<p>actually, I am (cynically) suggesting that the private Unis do not really want to recruit low income students, but they have to give the appearance that they do for PR reasons. Adcoms are smart professionals -- if they wanted more poor kids they would have them,TODAY.</p>
<p>But they do admit low-income students already, so I attribute the no-brainer points that admission committees miss to cluelessness (which I think Harvard, under William Fitzsimmons, is actively trying to overcome) and not to prejudice against the low-income students. I would like to see the recruitment and admission practices of many colleges change in directions that you and I seem largely to agree on.</p>
<p>"Has anybody even bothered to look at the demand side of this equation? How many poor/working class/first generation college students are even interested in going to a highly selective college?"</p>
<p>We have a kid with the scores, talent and ECs to likely be a candidate for a highly selective college. Her passion is Classics which is best represented at that type of college, but I'm a lowly admin and hubby is a garbageman and neither of us has attended college, so I'm not all sure that we'd have the courage to support/encourage/allow her to apply, never mind attend, one of those schools. Perhaps, but it's way outside our realm of experience.</p>
<p>I hope you do encourage her to apply! S's friend (dad auto mechanic in a small town) seems very happy."</p>
<p>Marite, I can see myself being absolutely paralyzed where she's concerned. Which is a shame because some really special things have come her way recently in terms of ECs and accolades. I don't know how people like us came to have a kid like her.</p>
<p>Your reaction to your D's talents and promise is so understandable; it is one reason why there are not more high achievers from modest backgrounds who apply to top schools. Lots more can and should be done to encourage them and support them (and their families) to apply.<br>
In the case of your D, let the CC community help her (and you).</p>
<p>"In the case of your D, let the CC community help her (and you)."</p>
<p>Thank you. I've already gotten great ideas and preliminary lists (she's only a sophomore). My thinking is that if there is even a possiblity, then we have to prepare financially now (we've been saving, of course), but need to have an idea of what we'll be looking at.</p>