taxguy

Tokenadult,before I answer your question, let me note that my intent is NOT to belittle your question or your important social point that you raise.

HOWEVER, what do you think would be the answer?

For example, if you were a doctor,do you want rich, high paying clients or poor ones that you have to support? Lets be realistic!
Talk to any accountant that you want. Ask them if they would prefer rich, high paying clients or ones whose fees are a lot less because they can't afford much.

Colleges are no different unless they have a HUGE endowment. Yes, you will hear them say that they want to attract some deserving, low income folks for diversity reasons. However, this will be very limited or they won't have the funds to survive.

As visual proof, check out the percentage of kids, who attend public schools, who get into top, expensive colleges and ivys ,and compare these percentage to kids from expensive private schools. You will find that private schools have a MUCH, MUCH higher percentage of kids who attend the top private schools. Why? As a trustee from Yale noted to me on the plane," If kids attend expensive private high schools, they probably won't need financial aid in college."

Yes, there are schools such as Syracuse and others that are known to try to attract more economically and racial diverse people. However, even as schools like this, they are severely limited. If you don't have the majority paying a high sticker price, you won't have the money for the needy student, absent a huge endowment.

There is nothing in our constitution endowing each person the unconditional right to attend any college. Yes, the Declaration of Independence notes that " we may all be created equal," however, we don't live our lives equally!

Thus , the bottom line is related to the bottom line! Poorer kids can get an equal education at their local state university. Many of the most famous people attended state and city universities.

tokenadult

What I notice about private educational services for K-12 students is that they are much more on offer for high-income, low-ability students (e.g., the various brand names of tutoring centers for struggling students, mostly located in well-off neighborhoods around the country) than for low-income, high-ability students. So, yes, the "natural" assumption is that colleges will serve most willingly the applicants with the most money, even if those are not the star applicants. And that does seem to be what the data shows.

I know by a wild guess from your screenname, taxguy, that you have thought about various issues of public policy related to tax rates and tax exemptions. And of course the general policy of the United States is to treat most educational organizations that are organized as nonprofit corporations as organizations that are not only tax-exempt, but also to which tax-deductible gifts can be made. So there is a public policy presumption, which goes back to England under its kings, that schools are organizations that benefit the public in general. From this point of view, it is regrettable (even if it is understandable) when a school declines to serve a learner whose abilities can benefit society at large greatly in favor of serving a learner who is from a family of greater wealth.

speedo

tax guy, I get your point and if
poor students really could get an
equal ed at the local state that
would be fine, even if they could
get a decent ed at the local state,
but as it stands, they can't even afford
to go to the local state -- yes, they
and their parents pay state taxes and
here in Pa at the same rate as the wealthy,
but those taxes are used to subsidize
the state colleges for wealthier taxpayers,
low income students are shut out, (high
prices and admission standards) even from
lower level states. Lower income families
are paying for a service to which they have
very limited access. Why should they
subsidize a wealthy kid's education?

Spidey1588

The truth is that reverse discrimination exists. You're almost punished here in America if you are too wealthy or if you are not a minority.

mini

Evidence, please? The Winston/Hill study clearly indicates the opposite.

tokenadult

Yes, evidence please? Have you ever lived anywhere else?

Ravesky

most colleges these days are need blind

Mr Payne

Yes, colleges like to admit the kids of the super wealthy. They might donate large sums in the future.

menloparkmom

"most colleges these days are need blind"
No, many colleges with large endowments are "need blind". The other 2500 or so colleges in this country without huge endowments are "need aware".

Newjack88

that's definitely an overstatement. and how about let's not bring race up so this thread does not degenerate into another Affirmative Action thread.

anyways, wealthier (generally those in and above the mid-middle class) kids are expected to have performed better academically than their peers of lower income backgrounds. colleges say that they evaluate an applicant's profile in regards to the applicant's background. they want to see that the applicant took advantage of as many opportunities presented to him or her as possible. since wealthier kids have more opportunities academically i.e. they go to better schools with better teachers, better facilities, more AP/IB classes, etc., they are expected to achieve more academically. so in that way, wealthy kids are "disadvantaged" in regards to college admissions.

that said, i think that being wealthy and having to take more AP classes and get good grades and test scores beats being poor any day. and also, in regards to college admissions it's the competition from other wealthy applicants, who make up a disproportionate amount of college applicants, especially at top schools, that makes the college admissions process so difficult.

tokenadult

This is indeed what colleges say, but it's not even clear in the published evidence that this really happens. The best data sets suggest that richer kids really get a free pass even on their high school performance compared to poorer kids.

flutterfly_28

are wealthy people at an advantage even if they're not legacies or the kids of celebrities or something?

the common app doesn't even ask for income...

tokenadult

Yes, the Common Application doesn't ask for income, but it asks for a list of activities and other characteristics that may be more readily obtained by someone from a high-income family than from a low-income family.

Some parents have commented above in the thread that they think that their children can make a case that they maxed out their local opportunities (in view of their limited income) and that that is enough to level the playing field in gaining admission. I'd like to hear more about that.

rocketman08

I think the more general question here (regardless of income) is should colleges choose, in their opinion, the best qualified candidates or should they engage in some sort of social discrimination. I think on the whole, most school would say it's their job to select the best applicants, period. The initial selection decision should be wholly based on the candidates accomplishments and abilities blind of race, income or other factors.

I'm very strongly against any bias, compensation or 'affirmative action' style policies of any kind. Giving someone an advantage because they're a minority (and therefore discriminating against the majority) is equally as bad as discriminating against the minority. Equally in regards to income, giving those with 'lower income' a calculated advantage only means there is a policy of actively discriminating against those that are financially better off. Any such policy is wrong. There's no such thing as 'reverse discrimination'... it's all discrimination.

In addition to those points, admissions polices based on active discrimination against a particular non-academic factor only serves to lower the admissions standards (you're accepting people that, on academics and achievements alone, would not pass the bar).

I wouldn't deny that, on average, top college admissions might be more skewed towards higher income families (if, on average, more affluent communities provide better education). However, that's not an argument to then say 'well then we'll just lower the standards for the poorer kids and that will fix the problem.' No, it won't. Instead we should focus on improving our education system so that those students can seek to achieve the level required to be admitted on their own merit without requiring discrimination against a different demographic.

If we lower the bar, everyone loses.

tokenadult

If I agree with that proposition for the sake of discussion, I might continue by making the case that if student A, student B, and student C have indistinguishable achievements during their high school years, then the lowest-income student of the three ought to be regarded as the best applicant and enjoy the highest probability of admission. But that is precisely what was NOT happening at the majority of American selective colleges as recently as 2005. Yes, if we lower the bar, everyone loses, and if what it takes to clear the bar is daddy's money rather than the student's own jump, everyone loses too.