<p>While I agree with this somewhat if I am the President of ThreeToGo U and see that year after year a higher percentage of low income students sabotage their own success I would see two possible causes for the continuing problems. </p>
<p>1) Students from low income families are less capable … and I do not believe this at all</p>
<p>2) Students from low income families may have had less experience and support growing up … and we can provide support to help them overcome.</p>
<p>Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same result. If schools stretch and accept students from lower income families and year after year a large percentage continue to have these kinds of issues then shame on ThirdToGo U for not figuring out what support should be offered to accepted students and new students to help them develop these skills and this knowledge.</p>
<p>The State U. of NY has an Educational Opportunity Program:
The State University of New York’s Educational Opportunity Program provides access, academic support and financial aid to students who show promise for succeeding in college but who may not have otherwise been offered admission. Available primarily to full-time, matriculated students, the program supports students throughout their college careers within the University.
<a href=“https://www.suny.edu/student/academic_eop.cfm[/url]”>https://www.suny.edu/student/academic_eop.cfm</a></p>
<p>These students have a mandatory stay on campus the summer before they begin school, and they are given additional support.</p>
<p>It seems like a small price to pay, to give kids who don’t have supportive or knowledgeable families some help along the way to deal with challenges other kids don’t have. Much cheaper than throwing money at kids who ultimately fail.</p>
<p>Well, we had the mortgage bubble, a few stock bubbles.</p>
<p>And then there’s John McAfee:</p>
<p>“McAfee’s net worth dropped from within the ballpark of $100 million to less than $10 million, he told ABC News. But instead of feeling a sense of loss, he says he feels free.”</p>
<p>Actually, I worked for ten years in a version of designated hand-holder, as a counselor in the Student Support Services program at a local college. SSS is a federal program for low income and/or first gen college students, to help fill those gaps regarding how to negotiate the challenges of being a college stduent–including filling out FAFSA (which many have to do themselves), choosing classes, advocating with professors, organizing and study strategies, etc etc. Also dealing with lots of things most of our kids thankfully don’t have to face–long work weeks, family issues (the student in the family is often the one designated to take younger sibs or older relatives to medical appointments, for instance), transportation issues, constant money worry, etc. Though I couldn’t “fix” these things, I could help them strategize, and sometimes I was just the sympathetic ear they needed.</p>
<p>It’s not a total fix, but it did make a difference. It also made me realize anew how deeply fortunate my own kids are.</p>
<p>My kids will probably not have financial concerns at school, but they will need to choose classes and do the other academic things you listed largely on their own. Support services for college students may increase graduation rates, but if they do not result in long-lasting changes in students’ work habits and other qualities, they may dilute the value of a college degree, since one reason employers value a BA is that college has traditionally been more “sink-or-swim” than high school. To increase college graduation rates we may be making college more like high school, in terms of academic standards and the amount of hand-holding.</p>
<p>Not at many private colleges…including the Ivies. Especially if you are a scion of a well-connected/wealthy family like the Kennedys, Forbes, or the Bushes.</p>
<p>Bah, humbug! This is a very hard-hearted response. First-gen students from poor families have a hard path ahead. Sure, some won’t make it even with some very limited assistance, and some will do fine with a little help in freshman year. Some don’t need the help, but I for one am very glad it’s there. Upward mobility is good for society. Fewer people at the bottom mean less need for government help, lower taxes, etc., etc. and students who succeed will contribute much more to society.</p>
<p>If it weren’t for cc, I would have needed the services at my school. It’s hard to manage the full time work weeks and full time school at 18. Nothing really prepares you for that IMO and I’ve had professors admit to me that they assume most students either don’t work or work very limited hours. Even things you don’t think about hinder low income students. For example, I have to take off work to go to office hours and that’s always a hard choice to make. Guess which one takes priority though? The one that pays my rent.</p>
<p>Echoing oldmom–bah humbug. Most Cc kids have at least somewhat savvy parents to help with these things; my role was to teach students how to be their own advocates and negotiate difficult/unfamiliar/confusing situations in ways liable to lead to positive results and overall success academicly, personally and professionally . On what planet are these skills not a good idea to have as students move through college and beyond???</p>
<p>The article focused on three girls who had it tough, not the range of students who find ways to make it through. Not the programs at these colleges that exist to help first-gens or low SES kids navigate successfully through the full four years. I don’t disbelieve their tales. But the article sets out to make one point only. </p>
<p>In many respects, it perpetuates stereotypes- of both this sort of student and of the colleges as hard-hearted or posing insurmountable challenges. </p>
<p>Of course it’s hard and I am sorry for kids who struggle. But, there is more to this than an article can convey.</p>
<p>Lookingforward, it seems to me that the organizations that try to get lower SES kids to college need to start looking for “Foster Mom/Dads” from the group of empty nesters who have had kids graduate to mentor them one on one.</p>
<p>I feel bad for these girls and question the philosophy of “elite” schools like Emory (sorry to single that one out) which are eager to fill their quota of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds so as to be able to boast of their “diversity” credentials while leaving these students to twist in the wind once they’re there. It’s hard enough for a middle class kid to self-advocate (and heaven knows how many “helicopter parents” who do it for them by phone or e-mail) but to throw these students into the pot with no preparation? A recipe for disaster. </p>
<p>I don’t see the problem with such kids going local (maybe even commutable!!) and public. Their support system is closer and the costs less prohibitive and have less likelihood to generate potentially crippling debt from “financial aid” in the form of loans that you still have to pay back. There was a phrase in the article (escapes me now) that denigrated this route. Back in my Dad’s day in NYC everyone in his social stratum was poor, the quotas worked in reverse (to keep out potential undesirables) and smart-but-poor high school grads from the “wrong” ethnic background flocked to the CUNY system which produced many great thinkers, artists and professionals. They commuted to and from school while living at home and did it in 4 years by day, or more laboriously- working by day and doing college by night. I’m sad to see that this is now considered antediluvian thinking.</p>
<p>There are so many advantages to dorming if you’re low income and especially first gen. These students are often expected to be babysitters for their younger sibs and work. It didn’t leave a lot of time or space for studying. If anything, I think low income kids benefit from dorms more than most others. Gets them around other motivated students and often away from environments that don’t promote good habits.</p>
<p>Actually the hardest hit people from Sandy were the very middle-class folks of The Point whose houses burned down or were heavily damaged. Not that really matters.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that someone here cited Chris Hayes. Hayes isn’t talking black/Hispanic vs. white; he’s talking black/Hispanic v. Asian. The NYC public magnets are heavily Asian now and the percentage of blacks and Hispanics is less than a third of what it was 15 years ago. The cut-off scores for the “sci highs” have soared because so many people are taking prep courses. 15 years ago, there was one prep book and some people worked through it. Most took the test without doing much prep at all. (Hayes is really focused on his old high school, Hunter, which isn’t a sci high, but does admit by exam. )</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the CUNY/CCNY before the implementation of open admission in 1969, after, and the effective elimination of open admission/remedial coursework from the 4-year colleges were effectively three totally different institutions in practice. </p>
<p>The pre-'69 CUNY was an academically elite system for high academic achievers that was comparable academically with elite private schools…and arguably more deserving because they didn’t practice legacy on steroid admissions many private colleges…especially the Ivies practiced up until the mid-'60s which admitted academically marginal scions like W. </p>
<p>The post-'69 CUNY went through a steep decline so that by the late '70s, many topflight Profs and students fled a system that was increasingly being flooded by un/underprepared students, losing public funding due to NYC’s economic crisis, diluting the curriculum to offer more remedial courses catering to the un/underprepated students, and skyrocketing crime rates at some of the campuses(i.e. CCNY). </p>
<p>By the late '80s/early '90s, most academically above-average students and their parents were doing their utmost to avoid having to go to a CUNY because it has reached its nadir and was regarded as a system for academically marginal students and those requiring remedial coursework because of poor K-12 schools and/or slacking off too much from their studies.</p>
<p>The elimination of open admissions/remedial courses in the CUNY 4-year colleges in the late '90s and substantial investment/reform in the system meant that since the '00s, CUNY has gone through a resurgence that meant it improved since my high school days of the early-mid '90s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that’s not true. I knew many kids who were doing prep for the Specialized HSs and Hunter College High School back in the '80s judging by what I’ve seen from a few highly ambitious older neighborhood kids and many more upper-east sider classmates who admitted as much after being admitted to our HS. Only differences were that prep wasn’t as intensive/involved as it is now and the only upper/upper-middle class kids who had the option of private schools who wanted to attend were hardcore STEM kids or parents* who had a higher regard for the Specialized HS/Hunter. </p>
<p>As for Hunter, a few interesting things about their admission system:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>One can only enter in the 7th grade so even if one passes eligibility to take the exam by scoring high on the Citywide exams, one could easily miss taking the exam if the elementary school admins/teachers didn’t know about it…or chose to keep the info to themselves. That was the reason why I never got to take the Hunter exam. </p></li>
<li><p>Up to half the seats are reserved for graduates of Hunter College’s elementary school for gifted kids. Effectively, this gives a huge admission discount to those who live in Manhattan as the school zones out students from the other boroughs and those from well-off homes who are aware and can facilitate their kids’ developmental processes so they can pass their “tests”. Heard from one parent this is no longer the case…though I am a bit skeptical.</p></li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Tend to be STEM oriented engineers, doctors or those who don’t feel spending money for HS when there are free options such as Hunter/Specialized HSs available.</li>
</ul>
<p>In a different thread about a young man from Massachusetts from a dysfunctional family, I recommended Northeastern as a potential school because I thought it would help to have his adult mentors close by. Others thought he would be better off getting as far away as possible. Reading this article convinces me that having some near by support is crucial.</p>
<p>I took the Hunter test in 6th grade. Fainted midway through, never finished. It was high stress, or I was sick, probably both.</p>
<p>I took the exam for Stuy/Science/Tech too. Definitely do not recall doing any prep or being offered any (1979?). I got into Science and Tech, missed Stuy by a point or two and thus was told I could do Stuy if I did some kind of summer school thing. Didn’t matter, Bx Sci was the cool school all my upper west side friends were going to so I would have gone there had a very good private school not come through with great FA…I chose that.</p>
<p>I do remember back then that Stuy was OK and Science was OK but Tech wasn’t. Maybe because of where we were in Manhattan, but it was that way then.</p>
<p>I can’t recall anyone prepping for those tests. Four years later I did SAT prep, not a class but a book and some practice tests. I think I only did one sitting though.</p>
<p>We were kind of unique in being poor but both of my parents (divorced) were educated well beyond college, just weren’t making money (minister and grad student, at that time). So I had some of the challenges of low SES kids but with the support and encouragement of wealthier families. I do know my mom was not going to send me to my local zoned high school. I applied to 10 schools total that year…apps, tests, essays, interviews, FA apps, everything.</p>
<p>It was a little offputting to arrive in a high school where everyone seemed to have summer homes and cool brownstones and all the money they wanted for clothes and eating out and stuff. But you deal with it.</p>