<p>Thats not what we are saying. We are objecting to creating an elaborate sherpa system, funded by the tuition of everyone else, to get a kid to open an email. Why were all the other kids able to get their email without assistance? </p>
<p>Emory sent her multiple emails. They invited her to join a minority mentoring group, which she didnt. They have a First Year Experience program to help kids acclimate. None of this worked because of <em>her</em> behavior which I dont think you are going to change from the outside. </p>
<p>Believe it or not, I agree with you. They did set up some support systems for her, which she didn’t take advantage of. These stories were not clear sob-stories for me; these girls did bear some responsibility.</p>
<p>I wasn’t putting down NYU, but it is a school that repeatedly appears at #1 on “worst financial aid” lists and so one where parents can be assured that their money isn’t “subsidizing poor students” (I was responding to someone who took issue with that idea). The majority of the “meets-full-need schools” are more selective than NYU - they have sub-20% accept rates, many in the single digits. I would say that their ability and desire to subsidize the education of many students who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford attending may explain their greater popularity, even among full-pays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I already do that. I don’t resent people who pay for their oranges with food stamps. What does this have to do with colleges that give lots of FA being popular and ones that don’t being less so? If you hate the idea of paying for others’ education, there are colleges that don’t give much aid out there…like NYU. But don’t resent Harvard for being generous when part of what makes it so desirable is the fact that it’s generous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. Not a NYC parent, obviously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know race is your favorite topic EVER, and it might be relevant in some of the other threads you frequent, but this particular one is about SES, not race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many poor kids have internet and a computer/ipad/whatever at home, do you think? Going to a library or school (if it has them for students to use as needed) or whatever is possible, but not particularly conducive to registering for the SAT and keystroking around to free tutorials, prep, books, etc.</p>
Yes- this was provided by government funds for all (who pay school taxes, yes?), and should have been provided to all schoolchildren, regardless of where they attend school. We can choose to use public school resources in our home county (ie speech evals, etc) even if our kids dont attend,we should also have equal acces to this service. Rich or poor. Equal access. Thats what this is about, yes?</p>
<p>This is a little off-topic but I agree jym. In our area it costs more to educate kids than we pay in taxes - when our population goes up, our property taxes go up to cover all the new kids. Anyone choosing private school is saving all taxpayers money and those families should get all benefits public school kids get - free SAT prep, busing if in the district, etc. Taxpayers still save money on those kids.</p>
<p>While a relatively poor school like NYU depends on tuition from full-pay students, richer schools like HYP can use generous financial aid to attract 50%-pay, 60%-pay, 70%-pay, and 80%-pay students and the like who may otherwise find the schools out-of-reach. This increases the pool of applicants from which to choose students from (in all segments of the class, whether the academic-elite segment, the legacy segment, the recruited-athlete segment, etc.), upgrading the selectivity and the academic prestige of the school, which likely increases the attractiveness to full-pay students.</p>
<p>Note that this works out in the school’s favor even if few students from middle or lower income (e.g. Pell Grant using students) are able to get admitted (the 50%-pay students at Harvard are likely to be from 90th-percentile or higher income households, based on the [Net</a> Price Calculator](<a href=“http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/]Net”>http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/) ).</p>
<p>I agree that the girls interviewed in the article bear some responsibility for not following through and occasionally having defeatist attitudes. But again, I think the lack of parental support compounds this situation.</p>
<p>PP, you continue to avoid the issue of whether it’s OK for some resources to be available to/used by some students but not others. The athletic trainer. The center for international students. The music studios. You get the idea.My son in college will NEVER use a number of the facilities and services on his campus. Some he is “eligible” to use; others he is not currently. It doesn’t bother either of us one bit. But you seem particularly hung up on services that help the low SES students especially. I don’t understand why.</p>
<p>Services that help low SES students especially but are not restricted to only those students would, I think, be comparable to athletic facilities to non-athletes, kosher/halal/vegan food options to non-religious/meat eating students, music facilities to the tone deaf, and so on.</p>
<p>So would probably pass the PP test :)</p>
<p>A little freshman hand holding is not unusual. Many schools put freshmen in special, required small seminars where that professor is their advisor, they are taught the ropes of college stuff and so on. This is perhaps more typical of LACs than of big Us, though it seems Emory had something.</p>
<p>I haven’t re-read the article but I thought the financial aid issues were communicated in emails sent to a campus address before the student actually arrived on campus.</p>
<p>Ok. First, let’s watch out for assuming these poor kids who get into the Emory tier or better are little stereotypes with no computer familiarity or access, no educational savvy at all, totally unprepared, babes in the big U woods- and lost. Similarly, let’s watch out for assuming all “poor” kids are essentially incompetent to make it successfully through a challenging college, unless someone holds their hands at every step and walks them through. And, that they all are so overbound with family responsibilities during hs that they can’t challenge themselves in hs and be worthy of the next stage- that only a massive “break” propels them forward. </p>
<p>The article [hence, I rail against believing the media as the freaking word of you-know-who] did everyone a disservice, picking 3 kids, picking one perspective only and writing in a manner that excites (see it here on CC,) rather than represent a greater picture. Maybe we each need to stand back from that one article- or a few like it- and see it for what it is. We can barely based an argument on a tales of 3 girls. We can be annoyed at whichever one didn’t check her email- I don’t see how we can extrapolate from her mistakes to indicting a whole system. </p>
<p>Second, what sherpa system? Who here really thinks a support team is responsible for rising college costs? Or some huge proportion of our costs? We’re talking a handful of adults, most of whom will make a middling admin salary, plus often a team of peer mentors. They don’t go to class for the kids, remind them of every deadline, rewrite their papers and wipe their noses. In my experience, these same folks often work with a variety of student needs that come up, under the umbrella (or reporting structure) that is available to support every kid on campus, one way or another, over time, as needed.</p>
<p>What is all this outrage about? Does it make a difference if Johnny Suburbs goes to the writing center or for some help picking classes or advice on how to handle some issue- and a finaid kid needs to do the same? You know, many schools also have support for international kids- do you object to that? Or for learning disabilities? Or specific academic assistance for athletes? Many schools underwrite the costs for clubs and activities, regardlesss of whether ALL kids are interested in those; some of these are far more expensive to fund than others. It goes on and on. How much can you bolster the position that finaid magically changes things?</p>
<p>And, she was in the wrong.<br>
The finaid folks have the right, btw, to make adjustments. The caveat is that all kids in a given category must be treated the same. It works in both directions- lowering EFC as well as raising it. The student ignored the communications, missed her chance to be part of an exchange. Yes, she should have been on the ball. At a certain point (and if there really were 17 emails,) yes, the school has to move on, follow their own procedures. Unfortunate.</p>
<p>Jym626, yes, I agree it would be nice if you had access to the same free service. But it’s not a case of being offered to only the poor and not to the wealthy, or vice versa. It’s offered to the public school students vs the private school students (or those not enrolled in the public schools). I’m sure it could be argued that in some poor inner city school districts the upper SES students wouldn’t be attending public school, but it would also be true that some lower SES students would be attending private schools. Many Catholic, and other private elementary and secondary schools, offer scholarship opportunities to those who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford to attend. And that is what this thread is about.</p>
<p>I haven’t read through all of the posts… but this is a very interesting thread and I am happy that the article was posted. I will say that my own daughter will be first gen and so this story will serve as a cautionary tail so to speak. I have sent it to her and we will discuss the article on how these young woman could have prevented some of the issues that befell them.</p>
<p>I want to add. That many students in my own neighborhood have NO computer(or one that is in a state of disrepair) let alone internet access. My daughter has the luxuries that many do not b/c I ensure that she has what she needs in order to compete(at least on a basic level) with those who have all of the accoutrements of high school success. And I am smart enough to know that these things are a requirement… not something that she can do without. I told one neighbor, who shunned all of dd’s bells/whistles…“A computer and internet access in the home are like running water and a toilet and air. they are needed!!”</p>
<p>I go back to her gc who resented me for all of the hand holding that I have done since frosh year. Had her school been in Easton, CT with high SES, would the hand holding of students be frowned upon? It is my hope that as she waltzes into mid junior year, that I will be able to cut the apron strings bit by bit… so then, by the time that she gets to her senior year, she is able to navigate all of the obstacles that senior year will present. I will be there for all of the issues that arise. Many parents at her school are relying on the gc’s to do it all… they have no idea that the gc’s are only there for high school grad requirements and “basic” college planning… they don’t feel that they are in a position to help shepard their children to collegedom(yes, I made that up). I have no degree and all I have needed was an internet connection, a few books to pour over, CC and the voracious appetite to get dd to where she needs to go. </p>
<p>Most parents don’t possess the confidence that I have and feel that they know nothing. Or that their presence will make those in positions of decision making upset/uncomfortable. So they don’t ask questions, they don’t question authority and they never want to pull back the proverbial covers to expose the truth. I say bull shiggety!! I have told my daughter that the gc’s work for her, without her(and other students) they would be without gainful employment. Low ses kids need to be empowered to expect more and to know where to go to have their questions answered.</p>
<p>Not always. Many public services are earmarked to low-income, under served, or are otherwise targeted to those who fulfilled certain stipulated requirements. </p>
<p>Whether it’s Federal Pell grants, Medicaid, or academically selective public magnet schools/colleges…including Service Academies, not everyone will be guaranteed access.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the very mentality you argued above was a factor which caused CUNY/CCNY to implement open admissions in 1969. As a result of that policy, what was once a highly selective elite public university system became a mediocre one within a few years due to the sudden flood of academically un/underprepared students which forced the system to allocate most resources to remedial education rather than teach the higher-level regular college courses which were the mainstay before that policy. </p>
<p>It also contributed to the straining of the system’s resources to the point free tuition was abolished in 1975 which made the system even less palatable to academically above-average students from the NYC area. </p>
<p>They came close to pulling this same “it’s a public service, it should be accessible to all” BS on the NYC Specialized High Schools which prompted the NY State legislature to pass the Hecht-Calandra law in 1972 mandating that admission to such public magnet schools was to be solely by academic merit determined by a standardized exam. </p>
<p>While the system’s not perfect, it does a decent job of weeding out those who are academically un/underprepared and those who lack sufficient motivation to go through the trouble of taking such a test.</p>
<p>Wow-- come back from a nice dinner to find this thread still open. Amazing</p>
<p>To answer the q re: the governor providing free SAT prep for public schools only-- this was not earmarked just for the “underserved” or “low income” students, cobrat-- it was targeted to all, to get the SAT scores out of the cellar for our state (which is most appreciative of the few states which have lower SAT scores, thank heavens). The governor got a lot of flack for his discriminatory decision, using state funds for only a portion of the state’s students. He ultimately offered it (after my kids graduated) to the public and private HS’s, and then promptly cut the funding for it, killing the program entirely. Brilliant.</p>
<p>OK, now back to the time management comment (which followed a statement that poor students have less free time than wealthy students- to which I took issue), which was all I was trying to address, before posters took it all over the place. Everyone needs to learn time management, IMO, regardless of WHY they are juggling time. Unlike PG’s dau, who was offered the opportunity to drop things if it was hard to fit in, my s knew that if he wanted spending money, he had to earn it. So he fit in a job with all his other demands. He didnt drop anything. It is doable. </p>
<p>And as for whoever didn’t get it (I forget and dont feel like looking upthread), the comment about living in a noisy place and trying to sudy being like a dorm was** A JOKE**. Lighten up!</p>
<p>Actually, it sounds like the program was geared towards public school students. Something which even though it wasn’t stated outright, was targeted towards poorly performing public school students who tend to be more likely to come from lower SES homes. </p>
<p>Once there was umbrage taken from parents/families from higher SES homes and they allowed private school students to attend, the more SE privileged students probably flooded the program to the point they strained resources and thus, effectively took places away from the public school kids…especially the lower SES ones who needed this public service the most. </p>
<p>The governor is also probably mindful of the negative PR implications of having a public program being flooded by those who are viewed as SE privileged by most NY residents…especially those from the lower SES homes. Just look at the BS tossed against pre-1969 CUNY or public magnet schools back in the '60s and early '70s…or to some extent…even today. </p>
<p>In many ways, this is similar to what happened to the CUNY system after open admissions…except it was the higher academic achievers who were effectively displaced from the 1970’s onward due to the flooding in of un/underprepared remedial students and the consequence reduction of academic courses/programs suited to their needs. Fed, state, and city funding ended up being cut so free tuition was abolished in 1975 and by the '90s…to the point CUNY wasn’t always the best financial deal for above-average/high stats kids and some outliers from public magnets like yours truly.</p>
<p>jym, sometimes it helps me to view these threads as rambling dinner-party conversations. Some of the statements are more like sotto-voce asides, and everything is communicated without the tone and manner that can only be conveyed in person. </p>
<p>In any case, I don’t think any of us who didn’t grow up in compromised circumstances can fully understand the mindset of parents who don’t value education the way we do or some of the other crushing issues of contemporary poverty. I applaud the kids in the article for trying as hard as they did to escape it, even if they didn’t succeed.</p>
<p>NO cobrat, that was not the goal of the free SAT tutoring program. I don’t know if you have friends or cousins or other relatives here, so let me tell you the goal from a local. There are lots of “private” schools here, as probably is true anywhere. Some are excellent college prep schools, some are for kids with behavior/learning issues, some are parochial, etc. The governor has to answer to the fact that our states SAT scores suck. He came up with an idea but it was short-sighted and he got grief for it. So he killed it. Dumb.</p>
<p>And yes Sally- am aware of the conversational ebbs and flows. I was just coming back to a statement I hadnt had a chance to address before dinner, and the fact that posters pinged off of one comment and subsequently went to town, way off topic (though IIRC you disagreed). Consider it an after dinner aperitif.</p>