<p>Its funny that Kreuger concludes that people from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum now supposedly benefit the most from attending top elite schools. In the mid-70s, this certainly was not the case. </p>
<p>My mom, a black woman who grew up in a lower-middle class family on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, got great grades in high school and ended up applying and being accepted to Princeton, Yale and Vassar, of which she chose Princeton. Since my grandparents were both working and really didnt have time to help my mom with the application process, she was pretty much on her own, except for the fact that she was granted the opportunity to participate in a program called PREP to help good minority students get into colleges in the Northeast. However, once she and her peers from PREP began college, PREP didn't carry through to help with acclimating to the social differences of going to an Ivy League university, and many of the kids from PREP became so stressed and uncomfortable that they dropped out. She graduated in 1979, but it took her most of her college career to get fully adjusted to the level of academic rigor at Princeton, and thus really did not get the kind of education she hoped to have. In retrospect, she says she would have been better off at Vassar, which had a more liberal student body and did not have as much of a prominent social stigma. </p>
<p>Obviously PREP didnt seem to consider that students may have needed the extra guidance once they have entered college, and their failure to recognize that and incorporate it into the program resulted in a class of minority students that, in a way, were given wings of wax and told to fly.</p>
<p>I'm sure that the Time story just added to people's frenzy about trying to get into Harvard. After all, being the only college mentioned on Time's cover in that way is a big deal. Harvard administration and adcmos are probably thrilled. They would have been upset if the same story had said, "Who needs Yale."</p>
<p>Walk into any bookstore and take a look at the college guide books. If you focus on the so called best of the small schools, let's say the top forty according to USNWR, it is hard to to ascertain much difference, particularly with the northeastern group. Certainly some are a bit more selective than others. Does that mean that the teaching is any better? I doubt it. J. Crew wardrobes, handsome endowments, BMW's, close faculty interaction, beautiful campuses, good food, good grad school admit records, aspirations of diversity all characterize these great institutions. If you covered up the name, it would be difficult to identify the school as the descriptions are so very similar. Is it Union or Hamilton or is it Trinity or Colby? It would be an interesting exercise.</p>
<p>There is still a huge Harvard difference in a lot of issues that matter. There are some other schools that are largely at the same level, but not every privately operated college in the northeast.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its funny that Kreuger concludes that people from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum now supposedly benefit the most from attending top elite schools. In the mid-70s, this certainly was not the case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the Krueger-Dale study is based on a cohort of students who went to college back in those days. The long-term follow-up they did, based on their criteria for success, revealed that low-income students were better off going to truly elite colleges than going to fine state flagship universities in their home regions. Advising for students from low-income backgrounds was ineffective all over the place in those days.</p>
<p>maybe that's due to a disparity to the supportiveness in lower socio-economic families concerning education? (like, even if two kids get into yale, maybe the one who goes to yale is also the one with parents who were supportive and taught them good work ethic etc. while the other didn't go because their parents were not as interested in their child "moving up in life" - because if you were interested, and your kid could go to yale, you would really want them to, right?) I think something like that is possible</p>
<p>i think it has a lot more to do with the fact that at an elite school kids from a lower economic status, were, in those days, very few... thus, what would happen is that these relatively-to-very poor kids would make friends who were, on average, very wealthy and had many connections. Therefore, these kids enjoyed the kind of ambiance, friendships, and plugs that high-income people did... which certainly helped them later in life. Their cohorts at bigger state schools, especially due to the size of these schools, were very likely still mingling (word?) amongst people in the same socioeconomic status, thus not beneffiting from the connections that the kid who went to the selective schools did.</p>
<p>idamayer have you ever seen rich white kids? I have, and they some lazy little ****s (in general, there's always the few cases).</p>
<p>It's the lower socio-economic families that try hardest. There's a reason when the old Harvard president was looking for the "happy bottom 5th" he wondered if the answer was "Harvard sons."</p>
<p>In order to be more fair:</p>
<p>It's the lower socio-economic kids that try hardest.</p>
<p>They just want to get out of the gutter their family is in. Usually, that's how they end up raising rich white kids. =)</p>
<p>kamikazewave, what does that have to do with rich white kids? (And I'm sure not all are lazy) The study apparently says:<br>
for lower socioeconomic students, Student A who got into harvard and went is far better off than Student B who got in and didn't go</p>
<p>I'm suggesting that Student A both went to harvard AND was more successful later in life because of his/her family (that has nothing to do with how successful or lazy or whatever the rich white kids are)</p>
<p>You said lower socio economic families cared less about education, and that higher socio economic families supposedly have a better "work ethic" for their kids...which is not true.</p>