<p>Even better, the average income is 72k–10k higher! That means we’re attracting a few extremely wealthy students to add to the mix. So, not only are we able to get a good representation of the middle/lower class, but we’re also getting a fair amount of students from the upper class as well. That’s the definition of an economically well rounded group of students. </p>
<p>***Note that average income is meaningless when assessing financial aid needs of students. A few very wealthy students don’t lower the financial aid needs of a student body more than a few somewhat wealthy students–no one is forced to pay more than full tuition, after all. You have to use median income for that analysis. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, I’m sure the 90k average income of OOS students implies that many are rich/wealthy (unless there’s a billionaire in our midst =))–and not many wealthy students are racially diverse. But that’s a racial diversity issue, not an economic one.</p>
<p>Sorry, justtotalk, but your analysis is too simplistic. That a large number of middle class students attend UW doesn’t make it any more economically diverse than any other school because middle class Americans are the majority and a majority of middle class Americans attend college. All the numbers show is that Wisconsin is average – insignificantly different than most flagship universities when it comes to enrolling middle class students.</p>
<p>On the other hand, UW has a very low percentage of students who receive Pell grants, which most educators consider to be the real measuring stick for economic diversity.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that UW Madison should have an income distribution that’s different than the rest of the nation? I don’t think so. If 75% of the US is middle class, then 75% of UW Madison’s student population should be middle class. If this is the case, then UW Madison is economically diverse. You say other colleges manage to represent the population as well. That’s great, I never said UW was unique in that sense. But you’re saying that UW is not economically diverse when it is.</p>
<p>To put this in racial context: the issue is that UW has 3% blacks when the nation has 14% blacks. Harvard, which has 9% blacks, is considered racially diverse, because this nearly represents the national demographics–the population students will ultimately be exposed to. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All we know is that 50% earned less than 62k. You’re saying that all those that earn less than 62k at UW Madison are still middle class when you never presented such data. </p>
<p>Pell grants are usually awarded to VERY low income students (<20k). Besides the UCLA and Berkeley, all schools (private and public) struggle to maintain a proportionate number of the sub-20k population. This is a problem across the board, which means for one reason or another these students are not academically prepared/able to go to top colleges. </p>
<p>If financial concerns where the only issue then need blind schools would have ~20-25% of student body as Pell Grant recipients. It’s closer to ~10-15% for the Ivies even with affirmative action. It’s a national issue (probably a high school preparation issue); it’s not an issue UW Madison or any other college can fix. UVA has just over 5% Pell Grant recipients, and this is considered GOOD. That’s pathetic.</p>
<p>This says nothing about the representation of 20-60k income earners at UW Madison–which is where a large part of the lower income population clumps.</p>
<p>First of all, I’m not sure why you keep talking about 62k being the average family income of instate UW students when as I’ve said before the average is 72k. 62k is the average income for Wisconsin families generally. </p>
<p>If you consider that the average instate UW family makes more money than the average Wisconsin family generally and that the average OOS UW student comes from families making a LOT more than the typical Wisconsin family then yes, you’re right – UW is economically diverse from the general population. But only in that its students have more money than average.</p>
<p>When talking about diversity, whether racial or economic, most colleges and universities are talking about UNDERrepresented groups, not over-represented groups. Middle and upper middle class students are not underrepresented in most colleges in universities.</p>
<p>I re-read that transcript more carefully. 62k is directly quoted as the median family income in WI according to Biddy Martin (this is much higher than what the Census reports but I’m using her sources for all data). You’re trying to compare that to the average income at UW Madison–supposedly 72k. The average income is obviously skewed upward–you can’t earn less than $0, but you can earn more than 124k. </p>
<p>You can’t compare median income in one population to average income in another population. And you also can’t use the average income as a measurement for how much financial aid the student body needs. Like I said, a family earning 90k doesn’t need more aid than a family earning 250k (they both need no aid instate). Thus the households that skew the average income upwards are not reducing the total financial aid needs any more than the middle class students. </p>
<p>In prior posts I mistakenly read that quote as saying that the median UW madison’s family income was 62k while the average was 72k. I was wrong–which means that data doesn’t show anything useful. There’s no information in your quoted transcript. All we know is that the average income at UW is 72k and the median income in WI is 62k. So what?</p>
<p>No one is saying UW Madison has significantly MORE middle class students than the general population. I’m saying it has the same amount. And the same amount of wealthy (primarily due to OOS). And the same amount of 20-60k earners. Just like the population. That’s ideal economic diversity. It lacks <20k income population. As I mentioned above, so does every other college in the nation except UCLA and Berk.</p>
<p>Until you show otherwise your point is moot.</p>
<p>The fact is very few students with the qualifications needed for UW or any other good school come out of the lowest income group. UW has done some studies and the numbers are very very small. Now maybe UCB and UCLA benefit from being relatively smaller schools than UW in a state with many times the population so they can find more high-achieving very low income kids. Also I think Califronia has a higher proportion of younger people while Wisconsin has a declining student age cohort.</p>
<p>Left out of this discussion is that UW-Madison is only one part of the UW-System, which includes (by my count, which could be wrong) 13 two-year colleges, and 13 four-year schools. For many people in the state it makes no academic or financial sense to go to Madison, which could be four or five hours away from their home and a family that may depend on them to work while they are going to school. Madison, both the University and the area, is generally more expensive than other parts of the state.</p>
<p>That’s true. If you live by Lake Superior and want to be a school teacher why trudge down to Madison when you can live at home and go to UW-Superior?</p>
<p>I guess if your only ambition is to be a school teacher and you don’t care about opening your horizons to greater opportunities, academically and socially, then sure. But really, living at home and going to college (even if you are just in the same hometown that you grew up with, and not literally living at home) is a tremendous mistake. College is about exploration, not spending more time in the area that you’ve already spent 18 years in (not to mention being so close your parents).</p>
<p>Plus, if someone has the opportunity to goto Madison (i.e., they were accepted) they should go. I don’t mean to bash the rest of the UW system, but really none of the schools in the system are even in the same league as Madison when it comes to academics. UW-La Crosse is the only exception, and that’s not in all areas. Classes at Madison have a quicker pace, are more in depth, and have tougher grading, all of which combines to force you to better learn the material being taught. In addition to this, the student body at Madison provides for a much more stimulating academic environment. </p>
<p>You might ask if a more academically challenging learning environment is really necessary for someone who just wants to be something like a high school teacher. I think it is. You very rarely know what you are really going to end up wanting to do in life. What if your ambition is originally to be a teacher, and then you realize halfway through your second year of college you’d rather be a scientist? You’re going to regret not going to Madison.</p>
<p>I went to UW-Oshkosh for 2 years before transferring to Madison (incidentally, I also lived at home), and while I certainly enjoyed my time at UW-O the difference between the two is indeed large. That’s not an insult to UW-O, it’s merely a compliment to how good of a school Madison really is.</p>
<p>That’s pretty insulting. You might want to re-think your arrogance. As you know, Wisconsin is not a wealthy state, and the cost of attending Madison when you can go to Green Bay, Superior, Whitewater, Eau Claire or whatever is just not worth it for many people. The sheer size of the place is especially daunting to some people as is the perceived politics of the school.</p>
<p>" But really, living at home and going to college (even if you are just in the same hometown that you grew up with, and not literally living at home) is a tremendous mistake."</p>
<p>Hundreds of graduating seniors from the Madison and Middleton area public and private high schools and their parents wholeheartedly disagree with you.</p>
<p>I reread my post and I realize what I said regarding teachers could be misconstrued. I don’t mean any disrespect to teachers, my point was that if you only one occupation in mind it’s a mistake to think you’ll end up doing just that one occupation. I just used teachers repeatedly because if it was already mentioned (poor choice on my part).</p>
<p>@Madison85</p>
<p>Of course people will disagree with me, and of course there are exceptions. But I kind of doubt your claim that hundreds would disagree with me, or at least some of what I had to say. Without a survey though I think it’s hard to tell for sure.</p>
<p>Finally, my post might have come off as arrogant but I’m really not. I’m just passionate about this issue because of my own personal experience with it as well as others I know. Everyone is different, but I think 90% of the time it’s a terrible idea to stay at home and go to college, and an even worse one to pass up an opportunity to go to Madison (or any other great school for that matter) and instead go to a lesser school even if it costs a bit less. There is a prevailing attitude with a lot of people I know in my (small) hometown that think like this, and to be frank it’s really screwed over some bright people I know that could have gone onto better things (and they admit it as well).</p>
<p>To 7366673: You are contradicting yourself when you say that it’s a mistake to go to college in your hometown, and then you say it’s a worse mistake to pass up the opportunity to go to Madison. Hundreds of graduating high school students from Madison each year choose to attend UW-Madison - while there are no surveys available, I doubt their parents (hundreds of parents) would agree with you that it’s a mistake to attend hometown UW-Madison .</p>
<p>You’re right, I should have thought through your statement a little bit more before replying. </p>
<p>I still stand firmly with my overall argument though. The case with people growing up in Madison choosing Madison is an exception, which I actually should have mentioned as one because when I think about it it’s exactly the kind of thing I would say falls under the “other 10%” of the time as I alluded to in my previous post.</p>
<p>You’re still being arrogant. It’s arrogant to assume that just because you did something and feel passionate about it that those who don’t follow in your footsteps are somehow making a mistake. Hopefully you’ll learn something about acceptance, tolerance, and respect for the choices of others during your remaining time in Madison.</p>
<p>It’s not just me doing some thing in particular and feeling passionate about it. It’s my experience as well as others I know. I would like for other people to avoid making similar mistakes. That’s not arrogant.</p>
<p>What I did mess up on was my word and tone choice in my original post. It makes it easy to ignore my argument and instead make ad hominem attacks like you are doing (which is pretty silly by the way, you can’t make judgements about someone based on a few online forum posts).</p>
<p>Oh well, I can’t change it now. If anyone else wants to chime in and call me arrogant and intolerant feel free to do so, I’ve said my two cents and people can take from it what they will.</p>