<p>Everyone is certain that applicants who are URM have a much greater chance of being accepted than an equivalent candidate; however, I haven't seen many statistics or general statements about how someone, regardless of race, with a much lower family income (albeit living in a good neighborhood) would fare against an equally-qualified candidate.</p>
<p>Of course, many URM candidates do also fall into this category, which could cause colleges to be inclined to knock two birds out with one stone, but I'm interested nonetheless. With ivy league colleges' student bodies being composed of a majority of students from top income bracket families, is there a benefit in their eyes to accepting more students at a lower income, regardless of race?</p>
<p>For places like Ivies, being a low income person with excellent scores and grades is a hook. Such colleges want to attract more low income students, which is why places like Ivies have some of the best financial aid in the country. However, they have a hard time finding low income applicants with the backgrounds indicating they’d be successful in a top college.</p>
<p>I would call it a tip, not a hook, if the low income student is not a URM and is from a well represented place. They are doing it for diversity, if you are a low income white kid from Greenwich CT (and there are many), it’s hardly a hook or anything close.</p>
<p>And just for clarification, what constitutes low income? At school, for example, I receive a reduced but not free lunch; my family’s income is somewhere between the 25th and 50th percentile, I believe. An exact number is in the mid 30 thousands, though I don’t like to talk finances with my parents, of course.</p>
<p>I’m not going to bank my college aspirations on a tip or a hook, but I am considering finding solace in such factors. I am a relatively competitive student (though still a Sophomore) so I have some, hopefully, backup attributes.</p>
<p>Qualifying for reduced or free lunch certainly qualifies one as low income.</p>
<p>The more competitive colleges are, the greater the chances they’ll be able to meet your financial need, so for you to have the best chance of going to a 4-year college without taking out a crippling amount of loans, take the most rigorous courseload possible, get high grades, and study for the SAT, which you can do on-line for free on the College Board site, and you can do through fairly low cost review books.</p>
<p>Outside of the very top colleges being low income is a hindrance to admission. The top
schools are interested in enrolling low income students but since they are need blind have
a hard time identifying who is or isn’t a low income student. Most of these students are identified and recruited by the college or come through programs like Questbridge. As a hook or a tip being low income isn’t going to help you much. Actually, in terms of college admission, being a low income, white suburban female is the worst thing you can be. Low income is generally accepted as being Pell grant eligible - family income in the low 40’s</p>
<p>“Top” are places like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Amherst, and Williams, the colleges that accept about 10% or fewer of applicants, and whose rejected applicants are students whom most colleges gleefully would admit. Such colleges tend to be very generous with financial aid because they have large endowments.</p>
<p>Less competitive private colleges that promise to meet 100% of accepted students’ demonstrated financial need may reject extremely low income students because the colleges lack the funds to meet the financial need of many very low income students. </p>
<p>Public colleges typically base admission on stats and state of residence, so income usually isn’t factored into their admissions. However, no public colleges except for UNC-Chapel Hill and U Virginia promise to meet 100% of the demonstrated need of all accepted students. Most public colleges may be able to meet as little as 60% of students’ demonstrated need, and the colleges may meet that need by offering large loans.</p>
<p>If your parent is a multimillionaire potential donor, that would help you get into virtually all colleges in the country including the very top ones. Not needing financial aid also would help one gain admission to many colleges in the country, but that in itself won’t help one gain admission to places like HPYS.</p>
<p>“Everyone is certain that applicants who are URM have a much greater chance of being accepted than an equivalent candidate”</p>
<p>“With ivy league colleges’ student bodies being composed of a majority of students from top income bracket families.”</p>
<p>Those statements are contradictory. If most ivy league colleges are composed of top income bracket students–not disadvantaged URM–then it is logical that being a rich kid is a far greater advantage. Look at George W Bush…dumb as hell but also very well connected. The .05 percent URM slots are really not a big deal.</p>
Not really. OP is talking about two different concepts there; the first sentence he is talking about race, whereas the second concept he is talking about socioeconomic status.</p>
<p>URM is practically racist because they are saying some races arent as good as others so we should give them an advantage. They should not look at race or income.</p>
<p>^ I disagree that income should not be considered because income can directly create or hinder educational opportunities/resources/environment etc.</p>
<p>I’ll paste in some links I gathered earlier, some with the help of CC participant mini. </p>
<p>Here are some links about the issue. The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students. (The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>
<p>I’ll paste in some links I gathered earlier, some with the help of CC participant mini. </p>
<p>Here are some links about the issue. The overall picture in the past decade has been that high-ability, low-income students are at a clear disadvantage in the college admission process compared to low-ability, high-income students. (The links below are in approximate chronological order of publication, from oldest to newest.) Is anything changing recently about this? </p>
<p>Monstor said: “Not really. OP is talking about two different concepts there; the first sentence he is talking about race, whereas the second concept he is talking about socioeconomic status.”</p>
<p>Somestudent2 said: “Of course, many URM candidates do also fall into this category.”</p>
<p>The topic of this entire thread is, “socioeconomic status and its bearing on admissions.”</p>
<p>“Those statements are contradictory. If most ivy league colleges are composed of top income bracket students–not disadvantaged URM–then it is logical that being a rich kid is a far greater advantage. Look at George W Bush…dumb as hell but also very well connected. The .05 percent URM slots are really not a big deal.”</p>
<p>Ivies have lots of top income bracket students because in general, those are the students who get the best secondary and elementary school educations in the country. Their parents also are more likely to provide them with excellent enrichment activities, tutoring, etc., and to be far more sophisticated about higher educational opportunities than are most people.</p>
<p>George W. Bush also had the advantage of being rich, having a senator father, and going to a top prep school. All helped greatly with his admission prospects.</p>