The Admissions Gap (Washington Post)

[vicariousparent]

<p>^^Why artificially?</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

Affluent whites are beneficiaries of test discounting, poor and URM are a sideshow.

</p>

<p>Finally somebody is seeing it the way I do. I would, however, suggest that it is an important sideshow. </p>

<p>By setting Asians and URM against each other, the rich and powerful have successfully diverted attention from their true mission- passing on the privilege to their offsprings. </p>

<p>It is my suspicion that they never truly believe that the URMs are an intellectual threat to their descendants, but the Asians they are not so sure. Using “diversity” as a cover, they can comfortably increase URM numbers on one hand and restrict the Asian numbers on the other. Brilliant.</p>

<p>Furthermore, having Asians help to keep the SAT scores up, and supporting URMs helps to keep the likes of The Rev. Al Sharpton from their collective doors.</p>

<p>Having lived almost all my life in the Commonwealth, I know “Divide and Conquer” when I see it.</p>

[artmommy77]

<p>I have one thing to say about the acceptance and admission of athletic students vs. academic admissions. My dear friend has a very talented child who rides horses very very well. She has taken top honors all over the country. She is a great kid however not a great student. She does one thing very well. She is getting university tuition free. She gets the following: tutors, free food cooked by a top chef, new apartment setting, trainers, free clothes, gym pass with private time, masseur and other goodies to numerous to mention. My mind wanders to the other “academic” students who (rarely get a full ride) get to live in what is laughingly called “honors dorms” (not new and really old). Where the kids get to cook, clean, and run the house for themselves. And I ask myself: What’s wrong with this picture? Why don’t we treat these kids at least the same? This could be a very selected experience I am witnessing. Anybody else?</p>

[mathmom]

<p>What school treats it’s equestrians so well? I’ve got a niece who needs some place like that! (Actually I think she’s a decent student, just more interested in horses.)</p>

[epiphany]

<p>And don’t think the experience described in 283 is limited to privates or “elites.” Publics do this, too. I’m acquainted with a number of similar situations, at publics. The thing is, though, sometimes the tradeoff for such relative pampering is that you can forget Having a Life for 4 years. Students who understand this and have weighed both, sometimes decline the athletic offers for precisely that reason. No interest in being a slave for 4 years.</p>

[Consolation]

<p>

It sounds like a couple of people have a grudge because they did not get as much financial aid as they wanted. Welcome to America, that’s the story of thousands of us struggling to afford a college education. I still don’t see any evidence that this university is any worse in that regard that others with a similarly high cost of attendance.

</p>

<p>I have no grudge against the U of C. I actually went to the U of C for graduate school, and I love the place. I’m simply reporting the reality as experienced by one family vs the hype of FA there. (People on these boards often claim that the U of C has gone “no loan” because of Odyssey, which simply is not true.)</p>

<p>

Quote:
… they had no problem saying that our family ought to borrow a sum equal to 2/3 of our annual income each year.
Nobody can compel you or your family to take out a loan.

</p>

<p>No, REALLY?? </p>

<p>

I gather what you are saying is that, when you got your financial aid letter, the breakdown of aid included a loan that was larger than you want to take, but you had not saved enough money to pay your expenses any other way.

</p>

<p>You would be wrong. You have no idea what the circumstances of my family are, or why, or how much we have saved or anything else. I find your attitude condescending and unpleasant. </p>

<p>

That is unfortunate and disappointing. I suspect many other universities are including large loans in their financial aid packages.

</p>

<p>Well, you would be wrong again, at least for us. None of our FA packages, including that from the U of C, included any loans at all. The U of C simply left an enormous gap that would have had to be covered by an unrealistic amount of loans…which was made clear to them. (We appealed. They didn’t care.)</p>

<p>Several other leading institutions that claim to “meet need” actually did. Luckily, my kid preferred one of them to the U of C.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>What a month this has been. </p>

<p>First, our taxes. The 1099T from son’s college: $36,000. The amount we were allowed to claim when filing: 0.</p>

<p>Then just this week he learns his very well-endowed college is extending the deadline on a summer stipend program that pays $2500 for six weeks of volunteer work anywhere this summer so long as it’s in the public sector. He was already plainning on volunteering this summer - now the sky brightened - perhaps he could earn some money, which he badly needs. After completing the form, requesting the letter from his supervisor - he learns, “Sorry! This is just for official Work Study students. Surely, you would have realized that!”</p>

<p>There are so many layers to this big ugly onion. Once you say yes to the lunacy of full freight, you discover that your child is last in line for campus jobs and a whole world of other perks. This notion that the “rich” kids are the favored, is just completely false. </p>

<p>We are trying hard to stay positive about the descision to go this route because it cost so much in terms of our son’s efforts to be accepted and our own sacrifice and stress to pay for it, but quite honestly it feels like a huge stupid mistake. He should have taken one of his full tuition merit offers . . .</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Consolation, I apologize if you found my remarks unpleasant. I must have gotten surly from thinking too much about tuition bills. But it’s good to hear that things worked out for your kid.</p>

<p>Now, with respect to how the University of Chicago is promoting its Odyssey financial aid program, a sidebar on one of their web pages states,

Odyssey allows recruiters to say two potent words to prospective students:
“No loans.”

</p>

<p>Such a statement may have misled some applicants to believe that Chicago was following in the footsteps of certain other schools, to completely eliminate loans. Consolation is correct that this is not true, and I would agree that the statement above seems to over-hype the program. An article about the Odyssey program is posted online at:
[The</a> New Aid - Chicago magazine - September 2008 - Chicago](<a href=“http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/September-2008/The-New-Aid/]The”>The New Aid – Chicago Magazine)</p>

<p>Excerpt (emphasis added):

The U. of C. received an anonymous $100-million gift in the spring of 2007, creating the Odyssey scholarships, which will replace some student loans with grants starting this fall.

</p>

<p>It’s a development program, with limited goals, and the fund-raising objectives are not projected to be fully met until 2010. Meanwhile, some accepted students get aid packages with no loans, others don’t. It is certainly unfortunate if this university cannot afford to meet 100% of all demonstrated need with outright grants, or even come close enough for comfort in every case. </p>

<p>However, hype aside, the data I cited above indicates that the University of Chicago does award generous amounts of financial aid. Whether it is distributed in the best way or not is a different matter.</p>

[idad]

<p>From the U of C website:

For students with family incomes below $60,000 a year, all of their student loan expectation will be replaced with Odyssey Scholarships. For students with family incomes between $60,000 and $75,000, half of their student loan expectation will be replaced with Odyssey Scholarships.

Seems pretty clear.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Chicago’s “College Aid” page states,

Our goal is to work with you and your family in developing a plan to pay for college. The formula is simple. We combine family resources along with need-based resources to meet the cost of attendance.

That suggests to me a policy of meeting 100% of demonstrated need.
But then their financial aid FAQ has the following statement,

In the event there are additional unmet expenses that cannot be met with current income or savings there are long-term financing options available. These resources are not included in the aid award but are available to meet the difference in the cost of attendance and the financial aid awarded.

Their simple formula would not work to “meet the cost of attendance” if the “unmet expenses” have no limit, and “family resources” are defined to include a loan of any conceivable size. A family should at least have a realistic hope of qualifying for any such loan, or else it would be very misleading to say they are “available to meet the difference”. Come to think of it, the loan limits should be based on the student’s ability to repay. A school should not be hinting that it meets 100% of need if their formula permits the whole family to go into maximum debt. It has no obligation to meet all need, but it also should be clear about its policies.</p>

[idad]

<p>I believe what they are saying is that if the expected family contribution cannot be made from available resources, then there are ways to finance the contribution. That is, need is determined by a formula that for some provides enough and for others with the same “numbers” does not.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>It’d be nice if, instead of having to parse a school’s public statements, we had a uniform “labeling” standard that concisely and consistently describes the financial aid policies. Need blind? Yes/No. Meets 100% of demonstrated need? Yes/No (with clear consistent guidelines stating what that means).</p>

[tokenadult]

<p>

It’d be nice if, instead of having to parse a school’s public statements, we had a uniform “labeling” standard that concisely and consistently describes the financial aid policies.

</p>

<p>Agreed. Tell that to the Common Data Set people, </p>

<p>[Common</a> Data Set Initiative](<a href=“http://www.commondataset.org/]Common”>http://www.commondataset.org/) </p>

<p>who compile some of that information already, as the federal government also does.</p>

[Kei-o-lei]

<p>Clyde10 said: He’s not gay or transgender; he didn’t escape from Somalia; and he wasn’t raised in a crack house. I guess he’s just not interesting enough.</p>

<p>Four flaws:
1 - College admissions is not just about individual merit. Your kid doesn’t get in to the school he wants just because he’s smart, test well and have lots of extracurriculars. The high grades and high test scores are associated with smarts, drive and economic advantage . . and the most selective schools have plenty of applicants just like your son, so they can pick and choose.
2 - Colleges select both individuals and classes. With many more white, affluent, talented, highly-testing kids applying to colleges than economically-disadvantaged kids who’ve overcome the odds to be considering college it’s just math that colleges pursue kids from the group that has fewer members.
3 - Chance plays a greater role than you think. As more and more people become “brand conscious” and direct their kids to the Top 20 or the Ivies competition becomes so intense for those schools that at some level chance plays a greater role. Example: son’s a fine musician? That’s a strength if not many musicians applied and just another factor if many did.
4-Demographics. Welcome to the one of the highest populations of high school graduates ever. </p>

<p>While it’s obviously disheartening to Clyde10 that his kid didn’t get in where he wanted, it’s both lazy and short-sided to blame it on “not interesting enough.” </p>

<p>Kei</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>

prestigious unproductive tech companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, …)

</p>

<p>Unproductive? Hundreds of millions of people use Google every day to do their work. How can that possibly be unproductive? As to Twitter not being “productive,” have you read a newspaper this week? Heard about the events in Iran?</p>

[Consolation]

<p>

From the U of C website:
Quote:
For students with family incomes below $60,000 a year, all of their student loan expectation will be replaced with Odyssey Scholarships. For students with family incomes between $60,000 and $75,000, half of their student loan expectation will be replaced with Odyssey Scholarships.
Seems pretty clear.

</p>

<p>It is clear if you understand that “student loan expectation” in this case means “available federally-subsidized student loans” not “loans required by you and your family to pay the COA.” Last year The U of C stated that the maximum Odyssey grant would be something like $5,200, which would cover the Stafford and other federal student loan amounts, period.</p>

[mazatl]

<p>what is a “Real Job”?</p>

[timely]

<p>

Don’t feel bad, these classes aren’t any better than the Blue Book for a self-motivated kid.

</p>

<p>But they are better for the non-self-motivated kid. My 2 sons showed significant increases in their scores (200-300 points) after a somewhat pricey test prep course. They both received nice scholarships and it was some of the best money we ever spent. They are plenty smart, but they weren’t terribly motivated to do test prep on their own.</p>