<p>We should applaud the unveiling of the findings of Avery and Hoxby, as there is very little research done on this and similar issues. Avery has done previous research on the importance of programs that provide the information to lower SES and dispel myths of affordability and chances. </p>
<p>The long and the short of the stories is that colleges have done a much better job in addressing the racial inequities than they have done with SES inequities. Of course, looking at the K-12, that should not come as a big surprise.</p>
<p>Very good point, katliamom. And it’s not just immigrant communities. My D1 attends a very good LAC just outside Philadelphia that very few people here in Minnesota have ever heard of. When she’s back home, she gets questions all the time, like: “How did you end up way out* there*?” or a quizzical, “Do you have family there, or something?” </p>
<p>They mean no harm by it. These are ordinary, mainstream, predominantly white, urban and suburban, working-class and middle-class Minnesotans–just your classic slice of middle America–but for many of them the idea of going halfway across the country to attend college because of the perceived quality of the academic experience is something that’s just completely outside their experience. They’ve never attended elite colleges, no one in the families ever attended elite colleges, and if you asked them, they’d probably tell you they don’t feel they’re missing anything. </p>
<p>On the other hand, many have attended college themselves, or even graduated from one, and some even lived on-campus while doing so. But they just don’t get caught up in the prestige game, and for the most part they take the view that one college is as good as the next; the important thing is to go to college, and to complete college, and hopefully to come out the other end with some enhanced skills that improve your career prospects. But they’re just not into chasing prestige or some elusive notion of academic quality, and certainly not willing to uproot themselves from family, friends, and community in pursuit of things as ephemeral, and perhaps ultimately trivial, as that.</p>
<p>argbargy, have you even read many of the posts here? Much of the problem is cultural, not so much a question of marketing.</p>
<p>You think the elite schools are screwing kids over, because they don’t use a stats-driven policy for admission, but they are private colleges, and they are free to use their money as they see fit. They don’t advertise that they admit only students with top stats, and in fact do publish statistics indicating the percentage of students they accept. If students don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to understand that a top score doesn’t assume them admission, then perhaps they don’t belong anyway.</p>
<p>The suggestion that affirmative action can play a role, based on the idea of trickle-down does have some merit. We’re not talking about insisting that the low-income students will return to their neighborhoods after graduation, but that their impact will happen while they are at an elite school, and even after, because of word-of-mouth. Lower income neighborhoods are full of stories of the kids that were screwed over (to use your words) by for-profit schools who gave them “aid” in the form of massive loans. If they had a “legendary” neighbor who made it to Harvard or Yale, who wasn’t there as an athlete, and didn’t have to have astronomical grades and stats, they might feel some hope that they too could get into a top school, and come out deep in debt. Maybe they don’t return to their low-income neighborhood, but that may have an even greater impact because they “escaped.”</p>
<p>Were you, or perhaps your offspring hurt by the admissions process at an elite school? Perhaps you would have a different perspective if you were born into a situation where you were screwed over on a daily basis based on your group membership.</p>
<p>I suspect, given my experience in our middle-class community, that the same applies at most income levels. Most of the kids in our HS are applying to state schools, because that’s what everyone does. One town over is a higher-income community, where most kids apply to private colleges, because income is a bit higher. I know of one recent graduate who found out about SAT-II tests from friends in the other community. She was ranked 3rd in the class, yet when she asked the GC why she hadn’t been encouraged to take the tests she was told “kids from our town don’t apply to schools that require them.” Incidentally, we live about 15 miles from Yale University. It’s too bad kids aren’t encouraged to apply to the elites, because financial aid is far better, and they are more affordable than top state schools.</p>
<p>70 years ago, my mother got a full scholarship to Washington University, St. Louis. Just handed out. No application, no essays, no tests, nothing. The practice back then was that the top student at every high school in St. Louis was given a free ride to Wash U. </p>
<p>I doubt that anything like that exists anywhere today. </p>
<p>Surely low income students handed an opportunity like that on a silver platter could not say ‘no’.</p>
<p>“argbargy, have you even read many of the posts here? Much of the problem is cultural, not so much a question of marketing.”</p>
<p>Yes, I have. </p>
<p>I agree with those positions (although calling them cultural is too narrow). It very difficult to unwrap the real story here from the spin. We do know that there is a group of A- kids who are not applying to as many Universities as kids with the same stats that are termed “affluent” are. Just looking at CB data scrapes we have no real idea why that is, or if there is even a “problem” to be solved here. If we broke down the data we might find that these kids are acting rationally and making the best decisions for them and their families. Or maybe there is some unquantified bunch of kids that could be steered to schools that fully maximized their potential. </p>
<p>We dont know because it seems like the data is very high level. I am cynical that the article has already come up with a solution (college recruiting) when we dont know the source of the decisions being made here. I’d suggest the next step here is trying to find out how many kids were are talking about here and what their demographics are. Sending more recruiters to the wrong schools certainly isnt the issue.</p>
<p>Neither is sending more recruiters to the “right” school. With today’s technology, the reliance on recruitin trip is silly and pathetic, unless it would be couple with a VERY large investment in educating the guidance counselors. </p>
<p>Since it has become obvious that those GC are really unable or unwilling to share the appropriate information AND mentor and guide those at-risk but highly competent students, time has come to try something much different. A good start would be to rely on clear and compelling information that is easy to retrieve. Only to be followed by highly transparent information produced by the colleges as opposed to all the silly marketing prose that is meant to hide what people really want to know. </p>
<p>Yet, they still prefer to rely on gimmicks and preserve the connections from the … last century. Be it with GC hand holding or alumni “recruiters.” </p>
<p>And, fwiw, schools really have few problems identifying the kids who can throw a football or swim faster than their peers! Think about it!</p>
<p>Guidance counselors at high schools should be the ones targeted. I know that when a student takes the ACT/ SAT, the deluge of brochures, letters, advertising, invitations from the colleges start. For those students and families who don’t have name recognition tags already in place, it can be difficult process to even begin sorting out the colleges. Most important to these kids from low income families are schools that do offer to pay 100% of need. This can open a lot of opportunities. Unfortunately, most guidance counselors could not give out a list of the schools that do give 100% need awards as a rule, other than some of the few obvious guesses.</p>
<p>" So why, at some of these institutions, is one more likely to find a student with a second home than one with a Pell Grant?" …"</p>
<p>Because, maybe, so few of them are getting accepted?</p>
<p>(And I did have multiple painful experiences, and, given the choice, wouldn’t do it again. But I am very grateful for the wonderful education I received.)</p>
<p>(For the record, Smith College has had no problem finding, recruiting, accepting, and graduating academically talented Pell Grant students. But they are committed to spending a lot of MONEY to do it)</p>
<p>I think you will find similar statistics in almost every country in the world, regardless of how expensive college is, or even if it is free. Quite simply, if they need the money, people go out and get jobs to support their families.</p>
<p>If students don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to understand that a top score doesn’t assume them admission, then perhaps they don’t belong anyway.</p>
<p>A very tough point for some to stomach. Dot. The thing I’d add though (and here my perception is definitely skewed) is that many of these non-2nd home kids (whatever we are calling them- underserved or low income or from challenged areas and home situations) are really super. It really doesn’t take a good-will policy to want them.</p>
<p>Aren’t the results not enough proof that the GC are the least efficient in bringing positive changes. At best, as a group, they might be well-meaning and supportive, but usually hopelessly behind in understanding the new dynamics of competitive education.</p>
<p>Are there exceptions? Obviously, there are a few GCs who are stars, but how many will you find in the schools that have been … mostly ignored or where selective schools could be located on the Moon as far the “GC” is concerned. </p>
<p>Why would we want to rely on the weakest link of the entire college admission process? A solution should entail making this group IRRELEVANT for college admissions and let them dedicate their days to fight truancy and deal with all the other problems that require guidance. They are guidance counselors and adding the word college to the term is one heck of a misnomer.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini. It sounds like the article may address only those who don’t apply to the top universities, but I’m sure that the problem for many who do, is being accepted. Very bright students still need the test scores to get in. Those who can afford in person test prep classes and tutors definitely have an advantage.</p>
<p>Oh, it’s not even a matter of test scores. (Gordon Winston’s study proved that years ago.) The colleges don’t want “too many”. At my alma mater, Williams, with the big need-blind fiction, a reporter (friendly to the college) sat in on the admissions process and watched as the admissions director COUNTED the “socio-economic” admits as they went along. Apparently, they had a clear target - not too many, and not too few - and they knew pretty precisely the need level of each of the applicants as they did so in their a-hem “need-blind” process.</p>
<p>If the colleges don’t have more “socio-economic” admits attending, it is simply because they CHOOSE not to have them. Admissions directors are trained professionals, they know precisely what they are doing, and shouldn’t be treated as if they are a bunch of jerks and no-nothings. When Anthony Marks at Amherst announced that he wanted more “socio-economic” diversity, lo and behold, they very next year, through the use of their wonderfui “need-blind” admissions process, Amherst doubled the number of “socio-ec” admits, without any change in their average SAT scores whatsoever. Those students (or ones like them) had been there every year, and had been REJECTED every year, until the college decided that now it was time to accept a few more.</p>
<p>That is really Anthony Marx, but is close enouh! On the other hand, the above is crudely simplistic. Not only did Marx increase the number of low-SES students, but also spearheaded a campaign to increase the size of the school. There was no magic involved, and for the record the move to expand the school and reserve seats to a specific class of students created huge tension among the outside and inside leaders in Frostlandia. </p>
<p>The next part of the statement is about test scores. The reality is that every school in the country would love to add lower SES students who also happen to have stratospherically high scores. When that does not happen, a school might have to follow the path of Mini’s beloved Smith and balance its books by combining tuition discounting and offering sufficient financial aid to ensure a steady flow of applications --which has not been a walk in the park. In doing so, a school has to make compromises including lowering admission standards. Again in the same way that Smith has to do and has done for a long time. Simply stated it is much easier to load your boat with Pell grantees from 1100/1300 SAT and second and third quartiles than from better ranked students. </p>
<p>The elusive very high stat students and low SES students? Many go somewhere else and not too far as Amherst has demonstrated. Or a bit farther than Northampton as the Questbridge program also shows. On the other side of the selectivity scale, one could take a look at Pomona and its efforts to augment its number of lower SES students.</p>
<p>But is is not easy, and a lot more complicated than Mini wants to portray with his/her Smith examples. And one has to remember that for every low SES student that is admitted there ought to be a student … rejected. This equation is a lot more problematic at schools that accept 1 out of every 7 or 9 students than at schools where 1 out every 2 gets a fat letter.</p>
<p>I’m low-income, and my last year’s tax returns indicate a total income of less than 18,000. I’m not applying to a lot of top schools because I don’t know how colleges would know that I’m low income, and many parts of my app are lower in standard than the averege student. If anyone could have some insight or advice into this, I would really appreciate it.</p>
<p>My favorite arguments are always between xiggi and mini, who are both always right and both always want the same outcome for the kids. </p>
<p>GoodJobBro, where are you applying? Does your school have economic diversity? Is that YOUR income, or your parents’ income? Do you have an economic and academic “safety” or two on your list?</p>
<p>Those are actually the most important schools, as you probably know.</p>