Not to quibble, but as the elite college discussed in the article (USC), a quarter of the students have SAT reading scores below 630 ( which at the 78th percentile is fine, but far from your supposition).
First off, the article mentions many elite colleges including the ivies and top public colleges not just US where Zachary Dell went to college. .
Secondly, USC recruits many D1 athletes which I’m sure brings down their average SAT scores but that doesn’t mean that wealthy kids at USC have below mean stats and are “dumb” or “mediocre”. We don’t know Zachary Dell’s GPA and test scores so it’s pure speculation that he has below average stats, let alone dumb.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that wealthy students don’t have the stats to thrive at elite colleges. And as we have shown on other threads, intelligence isn’t necessarily demonstrated on standardized test like the SAT/ACT.
Whether or not rich kids have the stats to thrive really isn’t the issue. The real issue is whether preferences for those wealthy and legacy kids are stealing opportunities from hard working poor and middle class kids with even higher stats, which was pretty clearly demonstrated by the publicly released data in the Harvard admissions discrimination case.
Look Harvard, Princeton, USC and all of the elite private institutions could fill their freshman class many times over with perfect GPA and ACT/SAT score applicants. They want a diversified class so it’s not about taking spots away from “hard working poor and middle class kids”.
No one has to attend these colleges if they don’t want to or don’t like the make-up of these institutions. They are what they are, you either like what elites have to offer or you don’t. Like I said before they are much more diversified than they ever have been. If they only took the highest stats kids, Harvard ceases to be Harvard.
Changing our immigration system back to the merit based, pre-1965 system would be a real help to accelerate our economic and cultural growth. It’s crazy that we don’t let STEM Ph.D.'s who are foreign nationals (and other needed professions) stay like in most other countries. These are some of the smartest people in the world, and their children would be raised as Americans and likely continue to contribute. They are the ones who create fortunes, employ Americans, and are a real benefit to our current population.
So Harvard and its ilk aren’t full to the brim with the smartest, bestest kids that the USA has to offer. Not a surprise, and not a shock. In fact, it’s not all that relevant to upward mobility. It’s not relevant, because the kids of the wealthy and powerful will get top jobs, no matter where they attend college.
Changing the admissions standards for “elite” colleges will have absolutely no effect on upwards mobility. Once Harvard is no longer the bastion of wealthy and powerful, it will provide no socioeconomic boost to poorer kids who will attend it. Companies that prefer to hire Harvard grads do it because they assume that Harvard grads are from the ruling class, or at least have been vetted by the ruling class. Once this is no longer true, these places will no longer have preference for hiring Harvard grads, and instead find other “indicators” that a person belongs to the ruling class.
Once Harvard no longer is an indicator of belonging to the ruling class, its money and power will wane fairly quickly, and the very reasons that people are fighting to make it easier for their kids to get into Harvard (or other “elite” colleges") will disappear.
Of course, if one’s entire purpose is to “bring down the Ivies”, that’s another thing entirely.
Besides, Isn’t this just a repeat of the same stuff that Peter Arcidiacono has already published? It’s sad when an academic who keeps on publishing different versions of the same article time and again. I’m a big proponent of tenure, but he’s a pretty good counter-argument. Seriously, a professor shouldn’t become deadwood after only 20 years.
People talk about all the opportunities to meet the movers and shakers at elite schools as one of the benefits. Take away those children of alums, those children of the business world, and wouldn’t that big benefit go away too?
If Junior Dell doesn’t go to USC, would Daddy Dell hang out there or would he hang out at Texas Tech or Oklahoma where Junior goes to school? I read that that’s why a lot of people want to go to the elite schools, to meet the elite crowd, to get introductions to Wall Street.
“It’s crazy that we don’t let STEM Ph.D.'s who are foreign nationals (and other needed professions) stay like in most other countries. These are some of the smartest people in the world, and their children would be raised as Americans and likely continue to contribute.”
Actually, this is one way of “sharing the wealth”, albeit a slow way. There are plenty of countries who desperately need those highly educated people, more than America does. Many of those Ph.D.'s can have a greater impact in their home countries or otherwise spread out across the globe. They are a boost to the local economy and to the health of the local population no matter where they reside.
If an institution that offers special treatment (in its admissions) for the children of the politicians all over the world, the offsprings of the corporate titans, and the other rich and powerful, how could it not be elitist?
Of course, the 25% below 680 may include many/mostly recruited athletes. You don’t know they’re legacies or wealthy. You don’t.
“…or at least have been vetted by the ruling class.” Vetted by professors? They’re the ruling class?
All these assumptions about what makes H a tippy top. How unfair it all is. How certain you are. Based on what experiences? (Not an invitation to the data heads to come in with their links.)
I haven’t read the paper yet, but the United States was in a unique position following WWII that no doubt contributed to high chance of an income greater than parents. However, the decline in upward mobility has gradually worsened over time since then, with most decades worse than the previous one… not just a spike in 1940s then flat line since then.
There are numerous contributing factors. “Elite” colleges giving preferences to legacies and favoring other hooks dominated by wealthy kids is not helping anything, but that is not the primary issue. One of the greater contributing factors is whether lower income kids attend college at all – elite or not. A college degree has becoming increasingly important for upward economic mobility in the current economy. One recent report lists the following percentages of bachelors or higher degree completion by family income level.
Lowest Quartile Income – 11% complete degree
2nd Quartile Income – 20% complete degree
3rd Quartile Income – 41% complete degree
Highest Quartile Income – 58% complete degree
Those 11% in the lowest quartile income who complete a college a 4-year degree tend to have good economic mobility and often move up out of the lowest quartile, to a higher income level than their parents. The other 89% don’t tend to do as well economically.
It’s not just a matter of lower SES kids having lower GPA or test scores. If you control for these factors, the majority of lowest quartile income high achieving kids still do not complete a 4+ year college, and still attend 4+ year colleges at far lower rates than kids with similar stats and higher income levels.
[/quote]
Anyone else find it ironic that right after @lookingforward said this, that @Data10 comes in with his/her analysis? 
@hebegebe, I sure miss your commentary as I haven’t seen much of it lately…
I one day hope to have the kind of wealth where I never have to worry about how much something costs (even though I would always worry) and it seems that if I get there, I will have “more money, more problems” because the rich seem to be hated in this country.
I know that I would not care what people think about the perceived advantages that my children and future generations gained from being wealthy, but I would look for ways extend the favor gained by that wealth while also giving back. It is human nature what the rich do, but instead of trying to become as wildly successful, it has become easier to wonder why they are not “sharing more of their wealth” or to ridicule the children/grandchildren of the original “wealth generators”.
Although I don’t believe in legacy admissions, I sure would like to have the power to write a check to send my kid to any school in America (although I would like to think I would not do so). It is easy to be self-righteous with my current level of wealth and power (hahahaha) but would I still be self-righteous if I had wealth and power?
One thing I know about the current situation is that whatever quintile you are born into from an economic standpoint you will most likely stay in that quintile or move up or down only one. It is rare to move two quintiles. There is a lot more to that than just what college you get into, but that is definitely a factor.
Kinda the old saying if you a born rich you stay rich and if you born poor you stay poor.
Also, let’s not forget that 20% of the undergrad students at colleges like Harvard pay nothing, as the wealthy families (like the Dell’s)are subsidizing the education of the lower SES which I think is wonderful. I don’t think they are as evil as many make them out to be.
I don’t think they’re evil, either. Nor is the yacht club or country club. All run on similar principles.
They don’t have to be evil for me to object to my tax money subsidizing their operations. If the private schools want to serve and protect their legacies or prioritize things that have nothing to do with education, such as admitting the the 7’ tall guy who can dunk a basketball but who is barely literate - they should be free to do so. But we shouldn’t require the taxpayers at large to fund that behavior any more than we require taxpayers at large to fund the yacht club.
1 Like
So it’s okay with you that State Schools admit and subsidize the 7’ tall guy, barely litterate that can dunk the basketball?
I’m not sure these elite schools necessarily need legacy preferences in order to bring in the big donations. How did MIT and Caltech manage to get their big donations?
Some examples of the recent big donations that aren’t from alums:
$750m to Caltech from the Resnick family in 2019
$350m to MIT from Stephen Schwarzman in 2018
$600m to Columbia from the Irving family in 2017
$200m to UC Irvine from the Samueli family in 2017
$150m to UChicago from Kenneth Griffin in 2017
Mega donors can be extremely generous, but regular donations from alumni adds up over time. And mega-alumi donations are even better - Michael Bloomberg’s $1.8 Billion to JHU for example.
^Regular small donations from alums aren’t materially meaningful for most colleges. They do, however, show the degree of alumni attachments, and more importantly for these schools, help raise their USNWR ranking.