No, these two model outputs are different as “Disadvantaged” output (plaintiff’s model) is NOT equivalent to “No Cost to Parents” output (Harvard’s model). According to Harvard, the “Disadvantaged” flag includes students who are 1st gen, or whose family income is below $80-85k ($80k is the standard Harvard definition and $85k number came from Admission Director McGrath’s deposition), or who live in a disadvantaged neighborhood, or who requested a fee waiver. “No Cost to Parents” refers to only those whose family income is below $65k. So the “Disadvantaged” group is significantly larger than the “No Cost to Parents” group.
As mentioned in the post above, both models used the same “disadvantaged” flag.
You are mixing up several issues. The "disadvantaged’ flag is given when readers believe the student is from a “very modest economic means.” The readers do not have any information about income from the financial aid form, so they don’t know whether the applicant makes $85k or not. Instead they make a educated guess about whether the student is from a “very modest economic means” based on a combination of criteria, including some of the criteria you listed, such as fee waiver and neighborhood. Another key one is parents’ occupation. It’s not just meeting at least one of the criteria. It’s an educated guess based on the file. In the previously linked Harvard OIR analysis that does consider reported income, the was a strong “disadvantaged” flag benefit for the $0 to $40k income applicants, and a smaller benefit for the $40k to $80k applicants. Some of the $40k to $80k income applicants received the flag, but many did not. Few received the flag above $80k.
Note that in the referenced class of 2019, 18% were flagged as “disadvantaged.” During this same year, Harvard’s website indicated “20% of our parents have total incomes less than $65,000 and are not expected to contribute.” If one assumes that a small minority of the “not expected to contribute” end up being required to contribute due to unique financial circumstances, as occurs for Yale on their website, then it might drop to 19% no cost to parents compared to 18% “disadvantaged”. In addition to being a similar portion of the class, there is a large overlap between these two groups, with ~80% of those who fall in to one group also falling in to the other, during the lawsuit period. While the two labels are not identical they are highly correlated, and one can assume a similar degree of increase with the proposed race neutral model applies to both groups.
I see you cherry picked the ONE thing in my list of things so will assume you understand our CC is less diverse in all those ways (race, ethnic, geographic, international) just aren’t understanding this one? “racial, ethnic, SES, geographic, international diversity”?
Our local CC is not SES diverse. It serves low income students almost exclusively. And they cover it with loans and Pell, primarily. It actually costs more than we pay for my D at Amherst.
Sure they’re highly correlated, but the point is one group is significantly larger than the other. Remember the reason we’re having this discussion is your claim that SES-based approach is unaffordable because the number of potential admits in the “No Cost to Parents” group in that approach based on Harvard’s simulation, and that Harvard’s model and Plaintiff’s model agree on how large that group is. My point is that those claims are unjustified because one group is significantly larger than the other, and therefore, the financial cost to Harvard would be significantly less based on Plaintiff’s model (than on Harvard’s model).
See my previous post. Both SES “disadvantaged” (having “very modest economic means”) and “no cost to parents” groups are similar size. Both simulations used the “disadvantaged” flag. Both simulations found a similar percentage “disadvantaged” with the proposed change, increasing from ~18% to ~half of the class being “disadvantaged”, which is problematic for the current levels of FA.
No, not all in the “disadvantaged” group will receive full ride.
Not all in the receiving “full ride” group are flagged as “disadvantaged” by readers.
Let’s do this a different way. Both sims mention ~18% were disadvantaged in the Class of 2019. Harvard’s website says the current percentage of “full ride” is ~20%. They print this rate on their website and in a variety of publications. There are also references in the freshmen survey. Can you find any reference anywhere to fewer than 18% receiving full ride in any class near or after the class of 2019?
Harvard certainly has been generous in awarding full-rides. We have seen posters on other boards stated they knew people who received full rides with $100k+ family income. But that’s entirely at Harvard’s own discretion and it may have been trying to lull some desirable (and relatively higher income) admits with more generous packages to commit to Harvard.
With respect to whether Harvard can afford the scenario where the “disadvantaged” group doubles (to 50%), Sally Donahue, Director of Financial Aid at Harvard, testified affirmatively.
However, Harvard may also become less desirable to elitist employers who prefer to recruit students from high SES backgrounds, or who have been socialized for four years in a predominantly high SES college environment.
Also, if about half of the students come from lower half SES backgrounds, that also means that the complaints from the self-described “donut hole” “upper middle class that does not get financial aid” about being squeezed out by both the lower SES students and the plutocrat scions have a greater chance of being true, or perceived to be true. From the point of view of Harvard’s marketability to students from those families, that may be a negative.
Plenty of people give lip service to the idea of helping students from lower SES backgrounds, but the frequent postings from the self-described “donut hole” “upper middle class that does not get financial aid” resenting the fact that others get financial aid suggests that such lip service has no depth when it comes to actual admissions competition for their own kids. The sub-discussion here about whether the SES distribution of HYP students (with about half from no-FA families and only 10-20% from lower half SES on maximum FA) is “SES diverse enough” is another indicator.
Agree, and Harvard and other super-selective colleges have been trying to ensure that their student diversity is marketable to as many students as possible – although the range of flexibility (100% minus the minimum “critical mass” for each racial/ethnic group – “critical mass” both in terms of comfort level and perception of fairness) they have has been narrowing. Yes, stuff like legacy preference helps them keep white enrollment to “acceptable” (to white prospective students) levels.
Obviously, the fact that the lawsuit exists means that they are no longer successful in such marketing. Of course, publicity about the lawsuit and the admissions process may make such marketing more difficult in the future, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. For example, even if the outcome is in Harvard’s favor, the publicity and revelations may result in:
- White non-legacy students may realize that their chances are much smaller than they may appear at first glance and no longer bother to apply, seeing Harvard as a place of inherited privilege (legacy).
- Asian students may continue to believe that Harvard is discriminating against them to keep their numbers down.
- Black and Latino students may feel that they will face more doubt about their qualifications if they are admitted and attend.
Of course, if the outcome is not in Harvard’s favor, it will have to change its admissions processes – but any changes could result in more suspicion and loss of marketability (e.g. if any racial/ethnic group declines, students of that group may feel that Harvard is unwelcoming of them).
According to my unscientific guess the $300K>X>$70K student pool should contain the majority of students with academic, leadership and all other talents. Students outside of this pool would be exceptions. Harvard obviously can find enough exceptions to admit but something is getting really wrong with this picture especially if all other top colleges will follow the same approach.
“the “demand” in diverse campuses/workplaces. We all benefit, in my opinion. I feel sorry for those that don’t see it that way, honestly.”
Thanks for feeling sorry for me, but I never said anything about diversity in workplaces, that’s a different issue altogether. Diversity, gender and racial, is definitely needed in workplaces, especially in high tech where it is dominated by white and Asian males. For colleges, does diversity (the ends) justify discrimination (the means)? I don’t know if there’s clear answer there, apart from the anecdotal posts on this thread, where it’s woo hoo - one of my best friends is black!
“@theloniusmonk I see you cherry picked the ONE thing in my list of things so will assume you understand our CC is less diverse in all those ways (race, ethnic, geographic, international) just aren’t understanding this one? “racial, ethnic, SES, geographic, international diversity”?”
Another poster said that. CCs reflect local demographics so the CCs here will be middle/upper middle class white and Asians and Latinos. For sure it will be more diverse than Stanford or even Berkeley.
As far as Princeton and other elites providing Aid to the truly needy that will have trouble covering the Student Contribution they do have an appeal process where the student can receive grant money to cover that if they have a reason they were unable to earn their contribution. At Princeton I’d assume that about every student in this position would attend their Freshman Scholars Institute that they use to help integrate students like this to an Ivy league type school. Those students automatically get the Summer Earnings contribution covered with grant money since they aren’t able to work during that time.
Also if a school gives total COA to a student are they eligible to get Stafford Loans? Can they reject the Work Study portion and cover it with Stafford Loans?
I do not believe that rejecting work-study is an option. It’s part of a standard FA package. In addition, all colleges prefer to limit loans whenever an alternative is viable. It would be viable unless a student were suddenly incapacitated, in which case most likely the student would need an academic leave, as well.
This certainly applies to the workplace, not just college admissions.
I’m pretty sure rejecting work study is an option. It’s not relative to this discussion so I’ll drop it.
So you’re claiming your CC isn’t diverse because it doesn’t have enough rich kids. That’s a rather bizarre and idiosyncratic view of what SES diversity means.
If all of a school’s students are from low income backgrounds, then it is not SES diverse, even though its lack of SES diversity comes from the opposite end of the SES spectrum compared to a school whose students are all from high income backgrounds.
Of course, it is a value judgement or opinion as to what level of SES diversity is acceptable or desirable.
But note that concentration of higher or lower SES students in particular schools may be due to steering students at earlier ages based more on their SES backgrounds than their actual academic ability and motivation (e.g. if high SES students are encouraged to aim for the state flagship and more selective private four year schools, while low SES students are encouraged to aim for the community college or marginally selective local state university, or can only afford the latter due to poor in-state financial aid in places like PA and IL). While it is not bad that a school serves lower SES students to help them succeed, it may not be a good thing overall if schools are highly segregated by SES.