oh I agree @RockySoil ; Stanford requires all test scores, but some don’t and some have a weird middle ground of saying consider highest score but don’t recalculate (whatever that means). just meant for some schools (chicago, MIT etc.) a student doesn’t need to hit the perfect score on any single sitting so perfect scores are even more common than based on single tests.
@Data10 the ivy academic index is a joke. it’s defined as 1 standard deviation below the average accepted student.
http://www.abrome.com/blog/academic-index
@anon145. It’s not a joke if you want to be competitive in the sport. And still have the ability to graduate. Knock the ivies all we want, but they like what they’ve got going. And the world seems to like them too.
@privatebanker Ivy academic index is the minimum grade/test score needed to get admission. The AI has zero to do with athletes once they get their likely letter, it has no relationship to how they perform in college academically. The AI is simply a high school number that is about a 3.7 UW GPA and 30ACT which gets in very few other categories of kids into ivies - and that is why IMHO it is a joke, since almost no other students get into Ivies with those stats.
As @Data10 estimated a recruited athlete at an Ivy has a 1000X times better chance of getting in than an unhooked applicant with same stats.
The point is the index works for them and they graduate almost all the students enrolled. It may be a less academically elite student. But I don’t think it’s a joke. They could think the 1600 science kid who has two left feet is a joke. And they are wrong too
“I expect the bulk of this effect relates to a large portion of high scorers not applying to Ivies and similar.”
They are obviously following a full ride, especially those who aren’t low income.
Also, I know that the Ivies have excellent programs, but we should keep in mind that part of rankings involves citations and salary at graduation, both of which are related to connections and pre-existing reputation, rather than opportunities for learning. This is not to diminish the quality of private schools, but it’s not like those public schools are not amazing schools, just because they graduate huge numbers of public servants, social workers, teachers (i.e. low-salaried, highly educated grads) or just because they are less likely to be cited overseas (because overseas institutions can only carry so many subscriptions).
When you get out of certain circles, you will find many more people believe that the UCs, UW, U Mich and Texas Tech, to name a few, are the best opportunities out there. Of course private schools may attract a lot of talent but it should not be in the least surprising that top students go to UC Davis, for example.
I don’t know if anyone else has made this point, but the population of unhooked applicants is not completely independent from the population of hooked applicants. In other words, there are many hooked applicants who will be part of the elite applicant population as we’ve defined it. So, it isn’t completely accurate to say that there are 30,000 elite students fighting for 20,000 seats, or whatever the numbers were that we came to. It’s either X% fewer students or X% more seats, depending how you want to express it.
I’ve got to say, every time I see numbers on the seats reserved for athletes I find it depressing. In effect it discriminates against kids with certain body types–for example, there aren’t many athletic opportunities for petite girls.
In a similar vein, I often complain that the apparent emphasis on “leadership” at these top schools discriminates against introverts.
Petite girls can run very fast. I used to love seeing a tiny girl at our high school outpacing the varsity guys on their training runs around the town. She went to Cornell and ran for them.
That’s why we encouraged our son to run - he was too small to participate in any team sports. And that’s how he got into Amherst, as I mentioned.
@MmeZeeZee No doubt you can get a great education at many different schools. But for the elite student that wants to go to a smaller program, with, say, <2000 per class, the opportunities are much more limited, especially in certain parts of the country. The examples you give, for instance, would go away. It’s for those kids that this thread is really valuable.
Among high scoring students, it almost seems that high scoring students tend to favor the public vs Ivy-like option with the higher cost, rather than lower. For example, Harvard would be near $0 cost to parents for most families with lower than ~median US income and typical assets, yet this group of high scoring kids with the near full ride are the ones who are least likely to apply. The linked study notes this effect, saying:
While the high stat kids from wealthy families that are full pay or near full pay are the ones that are most likely to choose a high >$70k sticker price at an Ivy over less expensive public options, again favoring the higher cost college option.
The post you quoted lists colleges with the estimated largest numbers of high scoring kids. Most of the listed colleges do have reasonable prices for in state kids, but they aren’t known for full ride scholarships. The full ride type colleges generally have much smaller numbers of comparable scoring kids, which relates to how they can afford to give full ride scholarships for the few top scoring kids that they do have. Many Ivies would likely be less expensive than the listed colleges for most high scoring kids from families with less than median US income. Harvard claims that they are less expensive than in state public schools for 90% of families in the United States.
The rankings that would have the most influence on college selection are USNWR national, which doesn’t directly consider citations or salary at graduation. They do consider faculty salary. Higher endowment type private colleges tend to do better in the faculty salary category.
I agree that the differences in starting salary primarily relate to field of employment, but I don’t think the primary differences in starting salary between the listed selective publics that high scoring students tend to attend and Ivy-type privates relates to social workers, teachers, and the like. Instead I’d expect one of the largest contributing factors is percentage going in to banking and consulting. For example, 36% of students in Harvard’s senior survey said they planned to start out in a finance or consulting position, making finance and consulting the 2 most popular fields of study. Public colleges tend to have much lower rates of finance and consulting.
Another difference is publics are more likely to cap the size of higher salary majors. For example, SV type CS jobs are known for higher salary, which relates to why a good portion of higher stat students pursue them. Stanford allows CS to grow to how ever many students choose to enroll, which has led to CS becoming Stanford’s most popular major of all time, which ~20% of declared students choosing the field. Berkeley admits freshman by major with more limited CS enrollment and makes it more difficult to transfer do a different major, resulting in only ~6% of students to choosing the major. Those 6% tend have high starting salaries, with an average starting salary of ~$107k in the most recent Berkeley salary report. If Berkeley had open major enrollment, like Stanford, I’d expect the CS enrollment be far more than 6%, puling up the overall salary average to closer to Stanford.
That said, if we are talking about top x% students, we should be looking at salary results for those top x% students at public vs Ivy rather than the full student body. The studies I have seen show fairly similar results when controlling for students some how. For example, the Dale and Krueger study found, “When we adjust for unobserved student ability by controlling for the average SAT score of the colleges that students applied to, our estimates of the return to college selectivity fall substantially and are generally indistinguishable from zero.”
Outside of a few fields like finance and consulting, employers tend to make similar comments. For example, the hundreds of surveyed of employers at https://chronicle-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/5/items/biz/pdf/Employers Survey.pdf gave the following average ratings of desirability of different types of colleges for hiring new grads. The scale is 1 (very undesirable) to 5 (very desirable).
Public Flagship – 3.87
Elite College – 3.69
Local College – 3.57
Unknown College – 2.67
Part of the problem with this type of survey and generalization is that it does not take into account of the disproportionate number of top students at elite colleges going into finance and consulting. Usually, outside of professional schools and graduate schools, the most ambitious and smartest kids at elite colleges tend to pursue careers in banking and consulting. Just like your example of Stanford CS vs Berkeley CS, I am not sure if employers outside of those fields are getting a representative sample for their survey.
The avg banker analyst that’s making 120k out of school is actually earning about $30 bucks an hour.
The number that burn out and burn up are legion. The number that make it to MD level is tiny statistically. The amount of people there go into banking is tiny as a statistic.
As I’ve mentined on other threads. The hype doesn’t meet the data.
The top ten feeder schools represent 30% of any incoming recruiting class at the major players, regionals and boutiques. No school represents more than 5%. So that means 70% come from outside the top ten. And top ten includes schools like UT too.
This isn’t the reason to knock the survey @jzducol. It’s these surveys are randomly disributed. And with so many more grads of flagships out there I guess there is a good deal of selection bias in results.
The Harvard senior surveys list different correlations than “most ambitious and brightest.” For example, recruited athletes are known for having the lowest average stats among Harvard students, yet athletes were roughly twice as likely to pursue consulting as non-athletes in the senior survey. Final club and fraternity members were more than twice as likely to go in to finance than students who are not final club members, which relates to why males were far more likely to go in to finance than females. The article at https://www.vox.com/2014/5/15/5720596/how-wall-street-recruits-so-many-insecure-ivy-league-grads provides a different theory than “most ambitious”… that many Ivy grads pursuing banking are"terrified about what to do next" kids who don’t know exactly what they want to do, but feel having a few high salary banking for a few years before switching to something else would be a good starting point.
I agree that the survey is not representative of certain industries, particularly “elite” banking and consulting. It’s also not representative of specific companies that have a stronger Ivy network or larger number of alumni decisions. However, the 8 non-banking/consulting industries that were surveyed all showed a similar pattern in lack of focus on college name, and lack of preference for “elite” colleges over flagships.
@RayManta Sure, if you want to go to a small school and an elite school, you may be limited. But you can get into very elite, small programs in larger universities.
I also think it’s important to keep perspective that the point is not to be in a specific environment, but to have the opportunities to move towards the person you want to be, to achieve your goals.
It is a very narrow (dare I say shallow) goal if you NEED to go to an Ivy League school to achieve it. Could they help you achieve many goals? Yes. But goals worth achieving will almost certainly have many paths available o them.
I’m not sure I follow. Here you point out that low income students do follow money, which is more available at private schools that meet need. I’m saying that for students who are NOT low income (i.e. those whose need is not always met at the Ivies) follow the money at publics.
I do agree that low-income students don’t apply to Ivies–if I’d known then what I know now I definitely would have tried for at least Purdue or someplace like Smith–but I was speaking to the majority of high scoring students, who are usually not low-income.
The quote you listed said the opposite. Low income high achieving students generally do NOT follow the money by choosing the near full ride Ivy type colleges. Instead they are likely to choose more expensive local college options and not apply to Ivy type colleges.
That was discussed in the remainder of the post, just beyond the section you quoted. The high income students for which Ivy-types are likely among the most expensive college options are the group that is most likely to choose the more expensive Ivy.
The linked study showed the following income distribution among high achieving students (using the study definition of “high achieving”). 66% of high achieving students were in the lower 3 income quartiles – the vast majority. Harvard is extremely likely to be less expensive than public school options for the many high achieving students at this income level.
17% in Bottom Quartile – Less than $30k income, Harvard NPC estimates $0 cost to parents
22% in Middle-Low Quartile – $30k to $60k income, Harvard NPC estimates $0 cost to parents
27% in Middle-High Quartile – $60k to $110k income, Harvard NPC estimates $0-7k cost to parents
Nevertheless, all but high income students are severely underrepresented among Harvard applicants, leading to the majority of the student body being among top 10% income according to the NYT study. Most other Ivies are worse than Harvard in this respect, several with ~half of the class being among top 5% income. At all 8 Ivies, the vast majority of the class comes from the upper portion of the top quartile for which the Ivy is likely more expensive than public/scholarship type options, and few come from the bottom 3 quartiles for which the Ivy is likely the among the least expensive options, including after scholarships to flagships.
It’s not a matter of the not high income students applying, but not being accepted because they aren’t qualified. The Harvard lawsuit docs show that applicants with less than $80k income had a higher admit rate than Harvard’s overall due to admission preference for lowish SES. I say “lowish” because $80k goes partially into the middle-high income quartile. The issue is instead that the high achieving kids who are not high income are applying in far lower numbers than the high income kids.
My kid’s involved in a program that visits schools that don’t traditionally send kids to the Ivies and similar colleges. Recently, she attempted to set up visits to four such high schools. One informed her they don’t do things like that, two never responded to multiple emails and phone calls, only one invited her in to chat with students.
I can’t help think there are some incredible kids out there who will never get the chance they deserve because someone at their high school is in the wrong job.
@Data10 I am reading the exact opposite in the text you quoted.
“Among high scoring students, it almost seems that high scoring students tend to favor the public vs Ivy-like option with the higher cost, rather than lower.”
High scoring = high scores
favor public = go to public schools
Ivy-like option = elite (?)
“With the higher cost” = not sure if you mean price tag or the total cost, either way, your source suggested many high scoring students do attend publics, which is what I was talking about.
“ll but high income students are severely underrepresented among Harvard applicants”
I don’t know why you arguing with me about this when I agreed with you.
You seem to disagree with literally everything I am saying, so I’m done with this argument.
I thought my posts were clear in specifying actual cost to parents after FA, with using phrases like “net price calculator estimates $0 cost to parents.”
I’ll spell it out in a different way by comparing the cost to parents at Harvard and Berkeley, as listed in their respective NPC calculators. Note that Berkeley was one of the two colleges in the United States with largest number of estimated high scoring students in their entering class. I am a assuming a $5k student work contribution, which is a typical expectation for FA recipients. I am assuming 4 in family, 1 in college, and typical assets/taxes/financial situation. I am assuming CA (in state for Berkeley) resident who lives on campus. Listed cost top parents is cost - grant aid - student contribution.
Note that in all listed income categories, students as a whole favor whichever option is more expensive after FA between flagship-type public or Ivy-type private. The students for which public is more expensive generally favor publics, and the students for which Ivy is more expensive often favor Ivies. I don’t think the students/parents are actively seeking out the higher cost. Instead I think the FA system is structured around being able to provide larger FA for groups that are relatively rare. The relative lack of low-middle income applicants to Ivies allows Ivies to be more generous with FA for the relatively few who students in these income groups.
**Lower Quartile Income (17% of "High Achieving HS Students in Study) **
Harvard NPC Cost to Parents = $0
Berkeley NPC Cost to Parents = $4k
High achieving students are more likely to apply to the higher cost to parents public option over the lower cost to parents Ivy option.
**Lower-Middle Quartile Income (22% of "High Achieving HS Students in Study) **
Harvard NPC Cost to Parents = $0
Berkeley NPC Cost to Parents = $4k to $9k
High achieving students are more likely to apply to the higher cost to parents public option over the lower cost to parents Ivy option.
**Middle-High Quartile Income (27% of "High Achieving HS Students in Study) **
Harvard NPC Cost to Parents = $0 to $7k
Berkeley NPC Cost to Parents = $9k to $20k
High achieving students are more likely to apply to the higher cost to parents public option over the lower cost to parents Ivy option.
Top 12% Income — Only Small Portion of High Achieving HS Students
Harvard becomes more expensive than Berkeley when crossing the approximate top 12% income threshold of $170k, as listed in NPC calc with assumptions above. According to the NYT study, Harvard and all other Ivies get most of their class from the small portion of high achieving students top 12% income, for which Harvard is the more expensive option than Berkeley and many similar publics. This is the group that is most likely to favor applying to an Ivy over publics, favoring the higher cost to parents Ivy over the lower cost to parents public.
@Data10 Your posts are wonderfully informative.
The data you’ve just presented are very fascinating. re: Top 12% Income — Only Small Portion of High Achieving HS Students. This, I assume can be explained by the fact that families can afford full tuition will choose schools based on factors other than cost, which may be prestige, class size, and presumptions about the makeup of the student body.
re: High achieving students among the bottom three quartiles of family wealth are more likely to apply to the higher cost to parents public option over the lower cost to parents Ivy option. Is it fair to say that much of this result is due to a lack of adequate information about the availability of financial aid at the ivies? Or a psychological assessment by these kids that they somehow aren’t “worthy”? Anecdotally, several of my daughter’s non-wealthy friends are intent on attending a state school, and aren’t considering applying to privates, even though I’ve gently suggested that they give it a shot and see if they are offered any aid, simply to get a sense as to all the options available.
Incidentally, the numbers you cite above are described as the students “likely to apply”–I assume that the students that apply to both publics and privates tend to pick the lowest cost option after FA is considered?
Question: Earlier in this thread we came up with an estimate of how many “high-performing” students exist, for application planning purposes. I can’t remember what number (or range) was settled on. What percentage of that number would you estimate fall into those who would never ever apply to an Ivy (or near-Ivy private), and instead focus solely on their public options? If the high-performing students were normally distributed by wealth, it would seem to be as much as 75%, but I assume the population of high-performing students is NOT normally distributed, but skewed to the wealthy due to access to better resources. Still, could it be as much as 50% of that population that won’t apply to the top privates? Thoughts?