<p>Then there are too many colleges with merit scholarships for scoring above a certain point on the PSAT, for certain GPA average, or even through essays and application process. There are outside scholarships that you can apply to if you have the grades. There are too many opportunities for financially getting through college and too many people so easily dismiss right away certain paths as unaffordable. Most low-income kids look into those things much too late, if ever at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did some people ever stop to question if, just possibly, some of the people who didn’t go to college or maybe defaulted to their community college maybe actually *wanted<a href=“gasp!”>/i</a> to attend college somewhere else, but didn’t think they could afford anything?</p>
<p>I often see a certainty on CC that is based on opinions and web access to studies. I question those studies. Many resources can inform us, but not necessarily tell us the whole truths. They can lead us to questions, curiosities- but should they be taken as definitive? (My cross to bear.)</p>
<p>Ime, yes, there is a distinct interest in minority and poor candidates. The “why” is all the good reasons we can intelligently cite. But, the greater issue of what can result from seeking these kids is often left (on CC) to flat explanations. My thoughts are unpopular. I know.</p>
<p>In the pursuit of URM and low SES kids, I personally think we have to step away from “noblesse oblige.” We have to recognize that these are, in so many cases, fully fledged kids. Their accomplishments are impressive, despite the number of siblings, poverty, poor school systems full of disinterested kids. These “winners” are not simply babysitting; their schools, even the worst, often offer surprising ECs, these kids take on impressive community involvement, I read the LoRs and the teacher comments are intelligent and well-considered; I read the essay and supp questions and, as appropriate, they are heartfelt and ring genuine. These kids impress me, even embarass me. And, yes, I am a tough judge. Quite a different picture than some of those priviledged LAXbros offer. There, I’ve said it. Apologies to any who find me harsh.</p>
<p>Does that mean they will thrive at an Ivy or top 10 LAC? Not always. Not necessarily. They are not categories, they are individuals. Someone posted, they should go, for all the right reasons. But, in the end, we have to respect their individual choices. Some will be empowered and thrive in the complex intellectual atmospheres of an Ivy, top 10 or top 20 LAC. Others will be empowered by attending their own state schools, rising, yielding influence in those contexts. Its not for us to dictate. Or assume that there is somethng so gosh-darned special about a top school that it’s really the only direction. Many of us sat on the MIT thread and argued that MIT isn’t the “only” avenue. Why do we so easily say some other top school is the perfect avenue for these kids?</p>
<p>xrCalico, good to see you again. Congrats. I don’t know your stats or your progress, but when we speak of the right college fits for kids, it just isn’t simply all the best schools we and usnews can list. The top schools - to take from them, to gain from those assets, is more than to passively soak up the “rarified” atmosphere. I firmly believe that- for some kids of any sort or origins- their home schools can offer more in the long run, more achievement opps, more balance. </p>
<p>Gawd, poetgrl, I apologize if this sounds awful.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, there is a wider range than HYPS or bust. The Carnevale study for instance is about 140+ colleges where low SES are under-represented. </p>
<p>The question is really not about if theose students should attend a prestigious school. It is about them knowing about the opportunities and hearing that they DO belong. In addition to facing daily struggles that are beyond the understanding of the average citizen, those disadvantage students are often subject to the poor decisions of adults who think the students should not bother or … dream. </p>
<p>Something that the lucky ones who were lifted by their own efforts or the help of unselfish mentors have learned.</p>
<p>lookingforward, it’s great to be back on CC and read your posts again too! I don’t think what you said is at all opposed to what I say or what some other people said and there’s nothing awful about any of it. In fact, we certainly don’t appreciate often enough how “low SES” encompasses such a very socially, culturally, and racially diverse segment of the population that even descriptions like “siblings, poverty, poor school system” are too much of an over simplification. </p>
<p>Xiggi puts this so much more elegantly than I ever can. Of course everyone would have different opinions no what’s the best college choice based on their own interests and needs, and from my reading of emohlee’s post, “top colleges” were where she wanted to go (I guess posters on here like bluebayou immediately associate top college with only “HYP”?). But so often, due to family financial circumstances, we put aside our wants to stick to what’s economically feasible or appropriate, all the time. What I thought to point out was that there exist options to get around these limitations of financial reality if only the students whom the options and the resources are meant to benefit actually find out about them in time.</p>
<p>I have a friend who was so intelligent and capable in every respect and would have absolutely thrived at a school with more resources, but she only applied to our local CC. She didn’t choose it because that’s what best fits her needs; with multiple kids in her family, she chose what was the best for her family. Though it’s more comfortable for us to assume that if someone chose a path that must be what they wanted, I have a feeling that had she known that with her grades, she could have easily qualified for full ride merit at some colleges, she would’ve chosen differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except then their premise is faulty from the get-go. They claim that attending a “top” private is less costly than attending even a two-year college. With the exception top 20 or so – HYP et al or bust – that is pure rubbish. Most of the top 140 don’t come close to meeting full financial need. Heck, once one gets below ~30, full need pretty much disappears.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, rubbish. There are no “opportunities” for low income students at 100+ of the schools on their (magic?) top 140. The vast majority of those top 140 do not meet full financial need. What is there to “know about?” Seriously?</p>
<p>(It is simply amazing to me that these two authors even had jobs.)</p>
<p>xrC, you’re right. I see a subset that does find the direction, whether or not they choose it, in the end. I’ll think about that. It does bring up the question, again, of how to get the info to these kids. And more. Thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t apologize to me. Heck, xrC says it well, as does Xiggi. But, your point is well made, too.</p>
<p>It’s complicated.</p>
<p>If it wasn’t complicated, it would have been solved by now.</p>
<p>I don;t think there is any issue about getting info to low-SES kids. If the colleges that meet full need set what is essentially a quota (high or low, it doesn’t matter) for Pell Grant students, it’s a zero-sum game. More applicants simply means more rejects. Winston’s study proved pretty conclusively that there were/are plenty of qualified low-SES applicants. And, as noted, when colleges want to increase the number of qualified low-SES students attending, with some money and commitment, they have little difficulty in finding them, or getting them to attend. (Princeton did that in the early 2000s - they didn’t make the number very high, but it was so low to begin with, it was a significant increase.)</p>
<p>There really aren’t that many opportunities. Add up, for example, the number of Pell Grant attendees per year at all the so-called 'need-blind" (doesn’t exist) colleges and universities taken together, and you quickly find out that the number just isn’t very large. </p>
<p>In the meantime, even in my “liberal” state, it is becoming more difficult for low-SES students to get a degree. It is no longer guaranteed that successful students from the two-year colleges can go to the four-year ones. Tuition has increased 65% in four years, and non-tuition cost of attendance has also been rising rapidly. And the number of places simply isn’t keeping pace, even as the state universities accept more and more full-pay OOS students. Again - zero sum game - whose places are they taking? (I’m much more concerned about these than I am about the small number of private “need-blind” institutions.)</p>
<p>I’m not sure there’s anything to solve. Things are the way they are because decisions are made and implemented.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>true. </p>
<p>You are probably more realistic than I am, but nothing to solve? Just sounds so harsh.</p>
<p>Well, what exactly IS the problem? Lack of a few more places at a small number of so-called “need-blind” private colleges (it’s never going to be very large in any case), or the difficulty of qualified low-SES kids in getting an affordable four-year degree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This. This is exactly the problem.</p>
<p>And it should be easy to solve, actually.</p>
<p>But, yes, the difficulty of qualified low-SES kids and adults getting an affordable degree is the issue. You’re right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My personal experience contradicts that. Just because a school doesn’t guarantee to meet full need for everyone doesn’t mean it doesn’t do it for students it wants. My S and some of his college class of '16 friends had full need met - or very close to it - by schools that do not guarantee to meet full need. Anecdotally on CC I know this is not unusual. </p>
<p>The thing is to cast a wider net and include schools that will meet need if you are desirable for stats or talent or whatever. Low SES kids can certainly get need met if they have higher stats than the school as a whole, at many, many good schools. And even some not as great ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is untrue. at least for the top 140 colleges which the authors are writing about. And the really high stat kids are snatched up by HYP et al.</p>
<p>btw: you even contradict your self which supports my point:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“close” in unattainable for a low ses kid. And it should be. No low ec family should assume the debt to cover the gap, regardless of how “close” it is.</p>
<p>And if I’m a responsible GC, there is no way I’m recommending colleges that do not meet full need to a low ec family. Why raise their hopes on the chance that they win the merit lottery, particularly when those lottery tix cost up to $75-100 a school (after sending test scores)? It is a fools’ errand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At $75 an app? When the family doesn’t have food on the table? Seriously?</p>
<p>btw: didn’t you post elsewhere that you were a “middle class” family? If so, how is that your “S…”</p>
<p>I think there are a bunch of reasons for this. I personally think a lot of it is ignorance. Generally, if kids are first gen, and if they come from an area that doesn’t regularly pump out a lot of kids, then they probably simply didn’t know it was an option. I know a lot of qualified students at my school who didn’t even think of applying to selective universities because they thought the 50k price tag they would have to pay nearly entirely, although in reality they’d pay very little if any of it. A lot of those same kids, if not for our local TRIO programs, wouldn’t be considering state either. </p>
<p>There are a lot of reasons why, people in general pursue what they are familiar with, which is why a lot of smart, poor, kids from lower class areas stick around and why richer kids, from prep schools almost always go to college. It’s not the norm for people to break the mold they were born in.</p>
<p>How many of these kids qualify to go to HYP in the first place? I am in a group designed to help kids from a troubled school get into college, and I was hoping to be able to direct qualified kids to get into Questbridge. But for the people who’ve showed up, they’ve all had sub 3.0 GPAs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Based on my son’s experience, I’d say that’s not quite true, Xiggi. He had perfect stats (1/400 class rank, 36 ACT, dual 800 SAT IIs), led two scholastic competition teams, and created his own self-designed community service project. He is a Pell Grant recipient, was a Questbridge applicant, received ACT/SATII/AP fee waivers and even got free lunch at school. He still got turned down by multiple top schools.</p>
<p>I would suggest alternatively that these colleges are really looking for kids with stats good enough (above the 25%tile) who match all of the following: URM, first generation college and Pell Grant recipient. The intent is to use the same lone tuition subsidy to check off as many different boxes in as many ways as possible. When people look at the aggregate numbers, it’s not obvious that select individuals are triple-counted.</p>
<p>As with everyone else who applies, academic stats are only part of it.</p>
<p>There are other obstacles low income students face. One is that the collegeboard application fee waivers are limited to 4. I know that there are other ways to get a fee waiver, but many colleges require the CB one. With only 4, one has to pick wisely- perhaps not a reach school. The colleges I have seen that do not charge an application fee are not the top prestigious ones. Also, the charge for these applications are higher. Students whose families can easily pay the application fees are not restricted to 4 schools which increases their chance at admission to a highly selective one. Also, if a student wants to send scores to more than 4 schools that come with the SAT/ACT fee waiver, that is an extra charge as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice that you are trying to target the kids chaos, but just because your group wasn’t what you thought, please keep trying. Just the fact that they came to you shows that they want and need help. Although they are not QB material, I hope you can help them in some way.</p>
<p>Any common app school has to accept both the collegeboard fee waiver and the NACAC fee waiver which brings the total to 8.</p>