<p>I don’t think colleges are devoting that much space to legacies. I talked to a woman who had had seven generations of her family go to one school and had a building named after them, and her grandson didn’t get in.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that legacy weighs in significantly for Princeton University admissions, “1/3 GPA, 1/3 extracurriculars, 1/3 legacy” apparently. The legacy thing is more for siblings rather than parents/grandparents, however…</p>
<p>I just blogged about this. It should dispel a lot of questions that you guys might have regarding the legitimacy of the article’s claims. Am I poisoning the well? Arguably. But at least my arguments are centered around fact, not ad hominem attacks.</p>
<p>"Why then do wealthy schools in my state have so much more stuff than schools in poor districts? If money isn’t important in education why is our district constantly trying to raise more money for our already terrifically endowed school? Why does my teacher friend’s school not have books or pencils? She doesn’t have a bookcase in her classroom and has to keep her stuff in a box on the floor. Go to the schools you’re talking about and see if they have working labs, gyms, computers, etc. Read “Savage Inequality”. </p>
<p>I know that many kids will still not learn, but at least give the other ones the chance. "</p>
<p>There are elements of truth in both sides of this discussion. The words poor and wealthy are relative terms. One can be poor but live in a town which is well funded and has a population that is fairly well off. The opportunities are not the same as being poor and living in an inner city. We live in a upper middle class town. My wife is a principal in an inner city elementary school next to the projects and 12 miles from our house. There isn’t any comparison. The schools in the city that she works in are all at least 50 years old - many greater than 100 years old with inadequate bathroom facilities etc. Although there is significant amounts of money spent in those schools, they need much more because the infrastructure is decrepid. More money has to be spent for children with special needs because there is a higher percentage of parents who are drug addicts etc. So more money would be helpful. On the other hand, the culture that these kids come from is not educationally oriented. These kids are under tremendous stress. I would think a ten year old would find it difficult to learn in an environment where she, her mother and her mother’s drug addict boyfriend are thrown out of their apartment and living in some motel. I also would think that this would be made worse when the adults aren’t feeding the child and abusing her.</p>
<p>Nice blog, Aristocrat. All I can say is “Ramen”. :-)</p>
<p>I have a question for Oldfort, who stated that his/her father took out 3 mortgages to pay for the education of his kids.
Did you pay him back a portion of it or was it never expected?
I am sking in a good way, I am probably in a similar situation that your father was 30 years ago. We are immigrants, making comfortable living with kids that excell in school and will probably be admitted to some good (expensive) schools. I can work hard and long, save money to give for kids education, but I also would like to retire at some point and travel, see the world. I know that it will be impossible to do both and I know that it all comes down to choices…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read The Price of Admission ;)</p>
<p>Having read “The Price of Admission” (along with “The Chosen” and "The Gatekeepers) I have to say that I found it to be utterly sensationalist and alarmist, though intriguing. It’s certainly true that money can make students into more attractive students, since it provides students with better SAT scores, better schools and grades, more unique ECs, and a sense of direction in life. It’s also true that legacy status means something (which is not necessarily a bad thing; if a school is inculcates its students with its philosophies, why wouldn’t it want students who have been raised by those former students?), and some students are admitted as “development cases.” Most importantly, it’s true that a lot of athletes are recruited, and at the Ivies, they’re recruited for crew and lacrosse in addition to basketball and football. </p>
<p>This narrows the field slightly for other students. But the idea that it’s impossible to get in to a good school because the rich bought up all the spots is ludicrous. Admissions committees aren’t conspiring with the wealthy to get them into the Ivies. They genuinely want to build an intellectually, culturally, and socio-economically diverse environment populated by passionate, motivated, intelligent students. It’s true that students with money can use that money to make themselves better people and more attractive candidates, but this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. And just because they have money doesn’t mean they’re bad people, or unworthy of being admitted. And while it’s unfortunate that those with money have an easier time in college admissions, as in life, than those without, it is not some heinous conspiracy. If anything, the college admissions process is the most meritocratic selection process someone will undergo in their life.</p>
<p>Very interesting article. Mind boggling even.
I will take it with a grain of salt but I believe there is some meritocracy to it.
I have enjoyed reading the comments and oppinions of the CC members. Haha</p>
<p>Keep in mind that it’s an OP-ED and as such is not reliable ;). He only really cites one source by name, and that book itself is biased, as pwoods points out. While I would not go so far as to claim that there is not an evident disproportional representation of wealthier children, such a phenomenon is naturally emergent even in a completely fair college selection system, simply because wealthier kids are able to educate themselves better with their greater accessibility of resources. </p>
<p>Gabler’s claims are debunked [url=<a href=“http://excelexcel.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/01/11/the-college-admissions-scam-legitimate-presentation-or-sensationalist-rant/]here[/url”>“The College Admissions Scam”: Legitimate Presentation or Sensationalist Rant? | The Uninteresting Chronicles of a High School Student]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>I’ll just quote msbean’s comment.
“Unless you are going to a top 10 school for undergrad and then do something with your life afterwards it generally doesn’t matter where you go.
Don’t get me wrong, there are circumstances when it does matter but for the vast majority of students it’s what you do after that counts.
People need to start teaching kids to think beyond simply getting into college, that’s not the accomplishment. Achievement in real life is a marker of success.”</p>
<p>I don’t get it. What’s all this chatter about?</p>
<p>I thought the BG article is well written and brings out interesting perspective from the author’s point of view. That’s one more input
for you to use as you please to form your own opinions.</p>
<p>Now I have a simple solution to the problem. Obama and Congress
could enact new legislation that prohibits ED in colleges on the grounds that it promotes discriminatory practices for access to education. At the same time, get USNWR to drop yield as a measure for college rankings … increase weight for selectivity.</p>
<p>Let me illustrate the impact of ED that creates a differential in selectivity for the rich vs not so rich. These are my estimates
for a fictitious top 25 college IVY. If you have the time, you
can use the common data sets, do more research and use the actual numbers for a college.</p>
<p>IVY matriculates 2000 students per year.
IVY selectivity is 20% (10,000 apply).
30% of IVY matriculations come form ED (600)
Number of ED applications = 1500
ED selectivity = 40%
70% of ED applications & matriculations are from rich families
(family income > $200K)
Rich students admitted = 420 = 21% of class
Rich students in applicant pool = 5%
Rich student selectivity = 40% (for ED)</p>
<p>There lies the discrimination. If you are rich, smart, and well prepared you have at least 2x chances of going to IVY than
if you were not so rich, smart, and well prepared.</p>
<p>Somewhere along the line, socialists forgot that universities run on money. Yes, the Ivy system is a bit unjust, but that’s simply life. The Ivies are providing the best education in the world, for a minuscule fraction of students, many of which can’t even afford their tuition might I add. It’s a parasitic system, the rich kids buy their way into these top prestigious schools, but those who genuinely earn their place in a school like Harvard, are the ones who truly benefit from it.</p>
<p>^
Universities run on the goodwill of their patrons aka endowments
and returns from wisely investing those trust funds. The patrons
who are rich enough to endow have “social goals”. Take a look
the goals of the foundation of your choice … Gates, Packard etc.</p>
<p>Capitalists need to be more aware of the trade-offs they face.</p>
<p>Would you rather spend the money to keep students in school
or pay the higher prices for incarceration and intervention
for juveniles?</p>
<p>Would you rather spend the money to keep people employed
or risk mushrooming ghettos that can damage the quality
of your life through increasing crime waves?</p>
<p>The selfish man should know what is in his best self-interest.</p>
<p>Sorry, I digress.</p>
<p>@blaw:</p>
<p>Let me get this straight…
you just made up some data and then concluded that it supported your argument??</p>
<p>Don’t deny the truth, the system is indeed designed to further the wealthy.</p>
<p>Those who are wealthy stay wealthy.</p>
<p>Those who are not wealthy relish in this false hope that they too will one day ascend to the top, but ultimately continue to stagnate at the bottom of the social pyramid.</p>
<p>That’s life.</p>
<p>And where precisely would the large middle class that every single Western country has fit into this scheme of yours, ib612?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That was simply an illustration for any numerically challenged
reader who may want globs of data and evidence any way …</p>
<p>The only relevant numbers are the selectivity of the ED pool,
% matriculated ED, and the composition (%rich vs %not) of the ED pool. You can go to the common data set and get them for the college of your choice. The patterns are irrefutable.</p>
<p>ED selectivity = 1.5x to 2x favorable to the candidate
% matriculated ED ~30%</p>
<p>ED composition = preponderance of richer applicants.
You may need a college insider to get this data though
I have seen some colleges give some clues.</p>
<p>The rest, your brain can make the conclusions.</p>
<p>“The Price of Admission” and “The Gatekeepers” really have nothing to do with this article, even though they are cited. Golden’s “The Price of Admission” did seem to say that there were too many athletes, but they didn’t translate this into being a sign of wealth. Only that it had nothing to do with intelligence. Frankly, in general, I have heard that the minority percentage among the athletes is higher than it is in the school. In fact, the Dean of Admissions at Harvard was a poor hockey player from the Bronx–that’s the way he describes himself. </p>
<p>Neither Golden (The Price of Admissions) nor Karabel (The Gatekeepers) complain that wealthy people may perform better academically because of their wealth, and this seems to be a particular focus of the author of this article. A focus which I must say is absurd. If you look at who Caltech admits, a place that only cares about intelligence, it’s not like it’s a bunch of rich kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, the ED/EA candidates tend to be stronger candidates. It’s common knowledge that people don’t expect to get in EA unless they are somewhat stronger than the general pool.</p>
<p>It’s like this false analogy: people who win Wimbledon are more likely to win the US Open than a random person who enters the US Open tournament. Therefore, the Wimbledon championship (and not the special ability which it implies) in itself gives you a leg up on other tennis players. </p>
<p>Seriously, you need to do a better job thinking about statistics before you make claims.</p>
<p>
I would suspect that their applicant pool is less wealthy than the applicant pool at most Ivies, though. It’s my understanding that science and particularly engineering tend to attract more middle-class and working-class students than other fields do.</p>