<p>The following articles reconfirmed for me the concept of holistic admissions at the most competitive schools. The Slate article indicates that many poorer top students in rural and suburban environments do not even consider applying to top schools while the NYTimes article on Intel finalists shows just concentrated the opportunity to compete is. Therefore, these schools rightfully recruit broadly to build their admitted classes.</p>
<p>Re: [Undermatching:</a> Half of the smartest kids from low-income households don?t apply to selective colleges. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/03/undermatching_half_of_the_smartest_kids_from_low_income_households_don_t.html]Undermatching:”>Undermatching: Half of the smartest kids from low-income households don’t apply to selective colleges.)</p>
<p>The article suggests that this may be because there are few to no students, teachers, or others in the high schools in the rural or suburban low income areas who have any knowledge of or experience with more selective colleges to encourage high achieving students to “aim higher” for college, and the smaller size and out-of-the-way-ness of such high schools means fewer college recruiters visiting compared to larger urban high schools.</p>
<p>This is very true in our rural white very small school district. If one isn’t applying to the state flagships, satellite campus, or a few nearby small LAC, well…good luck and I hope your parents are on cc :)</p>
<p>So far out of the realm of the existence here. Our GC told them “SAT 2s are a waste; no reason to take them” and she asked me what Profile was…</p>
<p>At least the state flagships are on the radar… the article made it seem like, at some schools, the better students aspire to the local directional university, and the others might go to the local community college (but not aspiring to transfer anywhere other than the local directional university).</p>
<p>Re the Slate article: I am a tremendous educational snob, in general, but somehow I have a hard time regarding the fact that some kids with high test scores don’t apply to highly selective colleges as a “waste” of talent. There is tremendous faculty strength pretty much top to bottom in the American college system, and a smart kid can learn a lot and put himself on the road to success starting just about anywhere. East Podunk State University may not offer the breadth, depth, or t-shirt value of Harvard, and it won’t elicit gasps of awe from taxi drivers in Shanghai. But if you find the right teachers – and all it takes is one or two – it can be as good as Harvard for a particular student. Maybe even better for some. Low income kids from urban magnets may do as well at Harvard as their wealthier counterparts, but if you enter that culture with no prior exposure to it, the transition can be tough. Some kids, even with full information, would choose a more comfortable, more familiar social environment closer to home.</p>
<p>Sure, Harvard would love to get its mitts on more of those kids. To do that, however, it would have to boot out some of its current students, and the losers are not likely to be underrepresented minorities, recruited athletes, or the children of Senators. Furthermore, when Harvard engages in the kind of broad-spectrum marketing necessary to build awareness in and attract applications from this population, people here and elsewhere howl about how Harvard is cynically trying to boost its application numbers to make itself look even more selective.</p>
<p>My kids went to one of those urban magnets, and yes their low-income friends were mainly “achievement typical,” applying to Ivies with a public safety. Mainly, but not exclusively. Some really, truly wanted to live at home, go to the large local public with other people they knew, do well, and get a good job. And that’s pretty much what happened. And many who applied to highly selective colleges only applied to highly selective colleges they could get home from on public transportation in an hour or less.</p>
<p>Those kids weren’t “wasting” themselves. It’s not a tragedy that we haven’t granted HYPS exclusivity with respect to America’s smartest high school students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder about that. If many of them went to Harvard, they would be almost entirely subsidized and therefore costly. Harvard et al. may think that need-blind admissions and generous aid packages fulfill their obligations, and that it is up to qualified students to show the initiative to apply.</p>
<p>I agree that those kids weren’t wasting themselves and that it’s not a tragedy that we haven’t granted HYPS exclusivity to America’s smartest high school students. To me the tragedy is the impact this has on the socioeconomic diversity at the top 100 or so schools. I think getting to know people across the full range of American society benefits all of the students and down the road could lead to less of the cultural divide that we have.</p>
<p>Socioeconomic diversity is a topic on Ivy campuses, and, of course, is very different from racial and ethnic diversity. I have read that some schools go to considerable lengths to recruit. (The Gatekeepers, for instance, details Wesleyan’s efforts.)</p>
<p>One problem seems to be the perception, among many parents and guidance counselors alike, that a student needs to be wealthy to attend top colleges, when top schools generally are the most feasible financially, if a student receives financial aid.</p>
<p>Re: #5</p>
<p>Remember that “selective” does not necessarily mean “HYPS”. In this context, it probably means “state flagship(s)” and similar universities, or at least considering a broader range of schools which may give a broader range of majors to study. The least selective four year universities tend to emphasize non-engineering pre-professional majors, so a good student with interest in liberal arts or engineering may find that going to a less selective four year university may limit his/her opportunity to study such subjects, compared to the availability of such as the state flagship(s).</p>
<p>Also, a “tremendous educational snob” telling others to go to a less selective university (paragraph 1) so that SES-elite but unhooked applicants would not have to face even more admissions competition at Harvard (paragraph 2) does not exactly leave a favorable impression.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, SES diversity is somewhat less visible at first glance than racial and ethnic diversity, and race and ethnicity tend to be bigger political hot buttons than SES in the US, so SES diversity is likely a lower priority at most more selective universities than racial and ethnic diversity. Also, SES diversity is more expensive on the financial aid budget, compared to recruiting and admitting racially and ethnically diverse students from SES-elite families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but the wealthier students have more opportunities to build up impressive academic and non-academic records to get admitted in the first place. Also, many of these universities are super-selective reach-for-everyone schools, so the applicants still need safeties. Unfortunately, some states’ flagships are poor at in-state financial aid (e.g. Penn State), so a student from a poor family in those states may find cost to be a true roadblock to the state flagship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First off, I did not “tell” anyone to go to a less selective university. I tend to be a shill for places like HYPS, and overwhelmingly I am am usually giving kids the arguments for going there, if they can. But there are limits, and I don’t pretend that somehow failing to apply to HYPS, or similar colleges, or failing to attend if accepted, is some kind of social tragedy. I had friends in college, at least a few of them, who would have been much better off – happier, more successful, more graduated – if they had gone someplace less full of itself. And some of them left and went someplace else and WERE happier, and are successful.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that all rural low-SES white kids should stick close to home for college. The irony of my second paragraph should have been apparent. I understand and agree with the efforts of Harvard and its peers to attract more applications from this and other, similar groups, and to admit more of them (and fewer of me). That’s what is in Harvard’s best interest. (And, just to be clear, I am using “Harvard” here as a synecdoche for “top-whatever elite colleges”.) It’s just not a matter for national mourning if Harvard doesn’t succeed in running the table. I’m glad you can find smart students, and smart faculty, almost anywhere you go.</p>
<p>JHS, these are 2 of the best posts I have ever seen on College Confidential. Well done.</p>
<p>@JHS- Thanks for the vocab lesson. Learned a new word today- synecdoche! :)</p>
<p>Let us be clear on what colleges are actually being discussed here:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(quoted from <a href=“http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0002s.pdf[/url]”>http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0002s.pdf</a>, but consistent with the definition of “selective college” Hoxby has used in other work.)</p>
<p>I havent read up thread because I wrote this post in reply to a similar thread about why low income students don’t attend more expensive schools, but I am not going to rewrite.</p>
<p>Several college programs in the middle & high schools in my area that support students who are low income.
[Welcome</a> to College Access Now | College Access Now](<a href=“http://www.collegeaccessnow.org/]Welcome”>http://www.collegeaccessnow.org/)</p>
<p>But even if a student recieves full need met aid as my oldest did, there are still many expenses that arent met. Not everyone is comfortable taking out loans to meet EFC.</p>
<p>Additionally the potential college student may be needed to work/ contribute to his families income &/ or is needed at home to perform child care.</p>
<p>Which doesn’t even consider the very large roadblock of the students family & friends pressuring him to remain at home & not " think they are better than everyone else".</p>
<p>Another factor is the costs to travel from rural areas to the locations of selective colleges. Travel costs are not typically covered by financial aid, and they can really add up, particularly if you need to fly on Thanksgiving week and need to use airports with there is little competition among airlines.</p>
<p>Thanksgiving isn’t a holiday that many fly home for, but our kids stayed within driveable range.
Clothing suitable for another region of the country is also a large expense and one that isn’t taken into account when estimating COA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Personal / misc expenses”?</p>
<p>Of course, different people have different tastes in clothing (even for the same weather conditions). This can result in dramatically different clothing costs for two different students at the same school.</p>
<p>Travel costs can add up. I had one particular friend back home who was not well-off financially, but was absolutely brilliant (4.0, test scores through the roof, and just by talking to him you can tell how bright this kid is) and happened to be Hispanic as well- a prime candidate to get into some very prestigious schools with nice financial aid to boot, you would think. Well, he ended up applying to one school- the state flagship 5 minutes away from his house. The reason? He didn’t want to put a strain on his family with all the travel involved in going out of state.</p>
<p>I’m sure he’s headed for big things no matter where he gets his degree from, but I think it’s fair to note that getting full financial aid can’t always completely eliminate the financial burden created by attending school out of state.</p>
<p>Re: #19</p>
<p>Going to a large-state state flagship is hardly a waste of talent. The article probably meant to refer to students who go to a nearby not-very-selective university that is a poor academic fit for the high performing student (e.g. limited selection of majors, resources devoted to remedial courses at the expense of rigorous or advanced courses, etc.).</p>