<p>Here's a link to an article about the nation's 15 richest and stingiest colleges.
The</a> Nation’s 15 Richest and Stingiest Colleges - CBS MoneyWatch.com</p>
<p>One statistic that remains ever constant in looking through educational research data is the direct relationship between family income and student’s academic achievement. Given that consistency, it makes perfect sense to me why so few PELL kids are at the most selective schools. Too many of them are not qualified to attend even when their challenged background is taken into account. </p>
<p>I’ve served on the scholarship committee of a small elementary school that has scholarships for kids being raised by single moms. An alum donated a large amount to go for this purpose only. We have a heck of a time getting kids that can meet the admissions standards which are not selective and still meet the qualifications. We end up often giving out the scholarships to kids without the need because those with it are not qualified to come to the school. Over 10 years, the kids that comprise the largest drop out, not do well group are the scholarship kids. There are also some of the brightest kids in that group too, but once you get beyond those few, it’s difficult finding needy kids that also can meet the standards. </p>
<p>I went to a selective school, and the kids who did not make it through the first year gauntlet did tend to be the neighborhood scholarship kids. Thought that it was just what I noticed until years later when doing a project for Educational Research, I got my hands on the actual stats over a 30 year time line. The % of drop outs form those programs were comprised mostly of those kids accepted through low income, special programs And this is a school with a very high sophomore return rate and ;6 year graduation rate.</p>
<p>Most of the schools on the list have need-blind admissions. Many of the schools have superb fin aid as well…if you can get in. I don’t think stingy is the right word to use when this is essentially an admissions issue.</p>
<p>I agree, cpt. I mentor a young man who graduated from a top 10 LAC and is now at an ivy. He was pretty sure he was just about the only Pell student at the LAC. He was incredibly intimated academically when he arrived, and he had to work incredibly hard to make up ground … the other students were far better educated than he coming into the school. This young man was not from an urban school, just a run of the mill public. He worked his tail off, and he did not begin to excel until a couple years in (when the playing field began to level out). He has told me numerous times that he may not have made it through if he had not had me to mentor him. He got lucky when he happened to get to know me when I spent time sub teaching in one of his high school classes … and I got lucky to have been able to impact his life in such a positive way. Few students in his situation have the necessary support system to take the risk to apply in the first place (I am sure this student’s GC would have snickered … had she even recognized that this school was so elite), the gumption to actually travel so many miles to a school where he knew no one, and the courage to stick it out when the going was so tough.</p>
<p>There is this myth that there are many underprivileged talented kids not getting into schools. That is not the case. Not saying that there are not exceptions, but usually the kids with the hardship backgrounds have a tougher row to hoe. My college has now instituted some summer institutes for such kids plus is giving them extra mentoring and help because the failure rates were so high and finally someone saw that it made no sense to be throwing money into this program for these kids to fail at those numbers. The rates are still not comparable to those kids who come from the top high schools.</p>
<p>There are a lot of bad stereotypes one hears about the “rich kid’s prep school” but the fact of the matter is that kids who come from that educational background are usually well prepared for college level work. That’s why so many of those kids who are on scholarship at these schools and were able to stick it out are ones courted by top colleges. Those kids have already survived the academic gauntlet and the risk of their failing has been reduced greatly since they have been on a level playing field with top students for 4 years and are still left standing.</p>
<p>Need blind admissions is a fallacy. Take any 2 students w/basically similar stats, ECs, and the college will opt for the full paying family.</p>
<p>@standrews, I think the “stingy” moniker is implied. To raise their low income student percentages would be VERY costly. At some schools, “need-blind” is in the eye of the beholder, the numbers don’t lie. </p>
<p>@house, an even stronger positive correlation can be found between SAT/ACT scores and family income, which is INDEPENDENT of GPA.</p>
<p>Radannie, that is not true for need blind schools. For the very top schools, those who have need may even have an edge as admissions officers dislike “silver spoon” candidates. They have to show a bit more, in their opinions, to show that they are making good use out of their advantages.</p>
<p>Another interesting article.</p>
<p>[Duke</a> draws ?rich kids of all colors? | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-draws-rich-kids-all-colors]Duke”>Duke draws ‘rich kids of all colors’ - The Chronicle)</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, not sure I agree, but more importantly, how would this question be answered correctly w/whatever data is available from these need blind schools?!</p>
<p>radannie, what is the data supporting your claim? The few need-blind schools have the money to support the policy.</p>
<p>Admissions officers have out and out said so. If your kid goes to a a rigorous private prep school where a significant number of the kids go to highly selective schools each year, you can see the disproportionate acceptance of those kids who are disadvantaged. Most such schools have Naviance like records and it is very clear that top schools will give a margin to those kids they feel are financially disadvantaged. Many schools have consistent %s of kids accepted in those categories and as a result are accused of taking quotas… They are taking quotas but not in the way thy are accused, They provide an admissions break to a given number of such kids. If they accepted purely on the line of stats and other profiles with no regard to first generation, URM, disadvantages, challenges, there would be far fewer such admissions. When you see any large number of admissions, the outliers pop out immediately and the ones that really hit hard are the recruited athletes and the aforementioned groups. They get more of a break than development/legacy kids.</p>
<p>Statistically cpt is right on target - however, those exceptions are truly remarkable individuals and should be sought out and nurtured. I have seen some very bright kids go off track because of family finances in the past few years and it makes me sad. It’s a real joy when one of the most disadvantaged kids in a school gets an SAT/ACT score near the top of the chart and truly has the goods to be competitive at the highest levels.</p>
<p>I recall a Calc BC teacher telling me about one of his students - only kid in the class who could really “think outside the box” - the kid was at the lowest economic levels and had some bad grades from missing high school for work (single parent lived on disability). The student had good enough grades plus exceptional test scores that made state flagship with excellent financial aid possible. Having the financial support to live on campus and devote focus to school has made college a very good experience - those kinds of stories are worth working for, even if the odds are against success. When true potential is discovered, adequate support makes all the difference.</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who objects to this sort of 'Hook". Even the most rabid folks about anyone getting any hook, will agree that those who are disadvantaged, challenged, are from families without resources, should get some consideration for this. </p>
<p>I am just pointing out that even with this consideration, the numbers are low. The question becomes how much of a consideration should be given. What percent of an entering class should be PELL recipients?</p>
<p>My kids are both Pell grant recipients, but I would never characterize them as poor or disadvantaged. We just have a modest income – not low income – and in fact it’s a real “middle class” income by national standards (not College Confidential standards). True, when we had just one kid in college his EFC was a bit above the Pell limit, but when our younger child also went to college they both qualified for a partial Pell.</p>
<p>I’m just sharing this to say that just because a kid is Pell-eligible it doesn’t mean they come from a distressed background or that they have had lousy educational opportunities. (Both my kids were homeschooled.) I imagine when we’re looking at those percentages of Pell students at top schools, that a fair number of them are more like my kids and less like inner-city, stereotypically “disadvantaged” students.</p>
<p>I feel eternally grateful to my son’s college. They accepted him with VERY high financial need which they have met. And for his first year, they didn’t even get the bragging rights of accepting another Pell student, since he did not quite qualify that year.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse - LOL - If you’d like to witness folks objecting to this sort of hook, you should take a meander over to the University of Michigan Decision thread right now…There’s a hot mess of applicants (and parents thereof) who’ve been deferred and who tend to rail against admissions for being “inconsistent” every time someone with lower stats makes the mistake of posting their acceptance!
Granted, they’re young – but they really don’t get the ‘holistic admissions’ aspect of Michigan, which indeed accounts for/gives consideration for performance in disadvantaged environments.</p>
<p>“… admissions for being “inconsistent” every time someone with lower stats makes the mistake of posting their acceptance!”</p>
<p>Some will insist that acceptance be based only on stats. Imagine their horror at stats weighing only 20% at some LAC.</p>
<p>It’s not an active effort on the part of these colleges not to accept poor students; I’m sure they’d like to have more economic diversity.</p>
<p>It’s simply much harder for poor students to receive adequate preparation for college. That’s a sad fact that our country has to deal with. Those of us who do make it are lucky, the exception rather than the norm. People in bad circumstances tend to stay in bad circumstances if society turns a blind eye to their plight.</p>
<p>So don’t blame the colleges; it’s not their fault that inner city schools are often terribly underfunded, that many students are forced to drop out or ignore studying in order to work to support their families, that college preparation costs money, or that standardized tests favor the rich.</p>
<p>I noticed the uproar on the Villanova thread, but it seemed to be the old diversity outcry. I’ll meander over to the UM thread sometime and see what they ar screaming about there.</p>
<p>We all want “fair” except for ourselves. I’ve told my son to keep his stats to himself because he was accepted with low test scores for a number of his colleges. That he was OOS, male, excellent grades from a rigorous school with difficult courses, has already taken 2 college courses at a university and done well, and some accolades probably did it. But there is a rumble about unfairness anywhere it is suspected. </p>
<p>For a lot of schools, the way they do things automatically discriminates against those who don’t have the money simply because most schools do not meet need so if you can’t pay, you can’t go. That restricts a lot of lower income kids to local schools and commuting. PELL and Staffords can cover commuting to a state school.</p>