Which rule is this? I don’t see why the colleges you initially listed (Middlebury, Bowdoin, Tufts, Hamilton, Wesleyan) are exceptions to my statements?
My post #61 said:
My post #68 said:
One important factor that has not been discussed is location. Colleges that are located in not high income urban areas usually have a downward SES compared to similar colleges. For example, University of Chicago is located in a not high SES section of Chicago. Looking at https://richblockspoorblocks.com/, U of Chicago is in a <= $20k average income neighborhoods and surrounded by many <= $30k average income neighborhoods. All other factors being equal, U of Chicago application pool would be expected to have a downward SES skew compared to similar colleges, resulting in a larger portion lower/middle income students in the entering class.
Vanderbilt is also located in an urban area, although Nashville is much lower population than Chicago, and has a variety of relevant SES and demographic differences from Chicago. Vanderbilt also was partially need aware at the time of the Chetty study (have since then modified policies) and they have some other relevant admission differences, such as a stronger dependence on test scores than similar colleges.
@Data10 Ah, I misunderstood. I was under the (mistaken) impression that you were implying that being need-aware skewed admissions to having more high-SES students. My apologies.
On the aspect of low-income SES boost, Harvard may be more anecdotal so it would still makes sense that most need-aware colleges will skew higher SES because they are clearly looking at ability to pay. It’s why international students skew high SES because they’re looked at as bringing money to the university.
SES distribution is influenced by a variety of forces. These forces could be divided in to 2 categories – who applies and who gets admitted/attends.
Harvard, other Ivies, and nearly any of the highly selective private colleges that are emphasized on this forum have tremendously more high SES applicants than low SES applicants… Even if admission was done by random lottery without considering application, Harvard and similar would have an dramatic overrpresentation of high SES kids. If the applicant pool is full of high SES kids, the admitted students are expected to be full of high SES kids.
The other factor is who gets admitted. Without considering hooks and other special boosts, high SES applicants are somewhat more likely to be admitted than low SES applicants, partially due to higher average scores. For example, one of the Harvard internal documents mentions that ~20% of <$40k income applicants had 1500+ SAT scores compared to ~40% of $120k+ income applicants. The relatively small portion of lower SES kids who do apply are also less likely to be admitted (prior to boost for low SES).
The 2 factors above are enough for nearly any highly selective private college to have a dramatic overrpresentation of high SES kids, regardless of need blind/need aware policies.
As selectivity decreases, the 2 effects above also tend to decrease. With fewer full pay kids applying and typically much smaller endowment revenue (endowment is well correlated with selectivity), the college is more likely to resort to need aware policies to achieve revenue goals.
The most extreme high SES biased colleges are often ones that have extreme need aware policies, but on average I’d expect need aware colleges tend to have lower median SES student bodies than need blind colleges, partially because they tend to be less selective. It is difficult to make a general rule.
The Chetty report mentions that 38 of the ~2,400 analyzed colleges had such an extreme SES distribution that there are more students from top 1% families (>$500k income) than bottom 60% families (<$80k). These 38 colleges include a good mix of need blind and need aware colleges, including 5 need blind Ivies with excellent financial aid – Yale, Princeton, Brown, Penn, and Dartmouth. At least some of these give a boost for low SES. However the worst offenders of those 38 tended to be need aware colleges (at time of study), often need aware, selective private colleges. A list is below. Median income figures are inflation adjusted. I believe all of the listed top 5 were need aware at the time of the study. Some have changed a great deal since the time of study… probably partially in reaction to the report and NYT article.
- WUSTL -- $301k median income, 22% in top 1% income, 6% in bottom 60%
- Colorado College -- $308k median income, 24% in top 1%, 10% in bottom 60%
- Washington & Lee -- $289k median income, 19% in top 1%, 8% in bottom 60%
- Trinity -- $285k median income, 26% in top 1% income, 14% in bottom 60%
- Colby -- $262k median income, 20% in top 1% income, 11% in bottom 60% .,,, Dartmouth -- $222k median income, 21% in top 1% income, 18% in bottom 60%
It doesn’t take a study to see the validity of the point that a need-aware policy at a college, any college, will tilt, in all likelihood, the SES balance further in favor of those with higher income at that college. Different colleges, of course, implement their need-aware policies differently, so the degree of the tilt may differ, but it’s a tilt nonetheless.