<p>no offense but highly doubt that. The elite and most prestigous want to be distinguished not “commonized”. Tuition-free for all? No… tution-free for the most outstanding has always been the way and it most likely will always be the way</p>
<p>Do some people get into top colleges just because they are rich? Yes, but they have to be pretty darn rich (like the Frists). These are “development” cases–they are accepted not because the college likes rich people, but because the college likes money.</p>
<p>On the other hand, colleges have become much more need-blind in admissions, and I very much doubt if in deciding between two similar candidates the issue of how much money they have plays a part. (Another way of putting this is that the top colleges have so much money, it just is not that big a deal to them whether one student can pay the tuition or not.)</p>
<p>But…it is also the case that wealth creates opportunities for students, and that helps them.</p>
<p>At most top schools, there are <10 development cases each year, people seem to think that everyone with money is donating to get in the door, but it actually doesn’t occur as often as we’d like to think. </p>
<p>Michele Hernandez addressed this well when she commented that, on the whole, a slightly less astonishing (but certainly still qualified applicant) with the financial resources to provide a new wing of the library would be an obvious plus to the university. They will obviously contribute more to the school financially than they will burden it academically, people just get mad when they see that admissions aren’t an absolute meriticracy.</p>
<p>I sort of agree with this…I mean, trading one outstanding applicant for another qualified applicant who can provide (albeit financially) something significant to the school doesn’t seem that bad.</p>
<p>“A fool and his money is soon parted.”</p>
<p>Say what you will about the rich, but obviously those that have perpetuated their wealth are doing something right when it comes to money. I’m certainly not wealthy, but choose to incorporate as many of the economic strategies into my own situation, as opposed to displaying class envy.</p>
<p>To the OP’s original statement, he already knows the answer and why it is so. He is throwing out some “intellectual chum,” to start a thread frenzy!</p>
<p>I agree with Brassmonkey’s comments about the relatively low number of development admits at the top schools. Top universities are so wealthy now that it takes a very large donation for them to foresake the normal admissions process.</p>
<p>It annoys me when people discourage prospective students from using the advantage of applying ED because they feel the “advantage is only for development admits”. If your college only takes 10 people early decision per year, that may be true. If they take 1000, get real!</p>
<p>Do the Wealthy Have an Advantage in Getting into Elite Colleges? </p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But shouldn’t be used as an excuse for not getting in those top schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are the exceptions, not the norms. Theoretically, it’s possible for anyone to achieve social mobility and to go to an Ivy (as long as that person has an intelligence above a certain level). But the fact is - people tend to be influenced by their peer groups more so than their parents (source: The Nurture Assumption, Judith Harris). Poor people tend to cluster around the same neighborhoods. And the underachieving nature of those schools and of the peer groups within naturally has a tendency to de-motivate students. You can’t achieve social mobility if you don’t know how to achieve social mobility. A number of sociology professors at the University of Washington did a study of Tacoma inner study public schools and found that many of the SENIORS there didn’t even know how to apply to college!</p>
<p>The fact is - most people of lower social standing who are probably intelligent enough to go Ivy probably don’t even have ivy league aspirations as a product of their socialization practices. If you don’t have the aspirations - you’ll never go ivy. If they socialized in a different environment, they might even find the peers that would motivate them.</p>
<p>EDIT: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1784285&postcount=42[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1784285&postcount=42</a>
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2954417&postcount=199[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2954417&postcount=199</a></p>
<p>Interesting. Anyhow perhaps immigrants are more likely to be influenced by family values than peers (especially if they cannot fit in with their peer groups). This perhaps is a situation where the sociological research on parental vs. peer influence does not hold as strongly. Nonetheless, you still need cultural capital in order to know what to do in order to apply - to know what Ivy league colleges look for. A LOT of people are very ignorant about ivy league admissions - they believe that you need to superficially engage in a lot of extra-curricular activities in order to go Ivy. But this belief hurts them - since Ivies don’t look for people who superficially engage in lots of extra-curriculars. And moreover, this often takes time away from their studying - time that is more valuable for them since they are often academically behind compared to their peers in better off school districts</p>
<p>It would do a lot of them well if they found College Confidential (where they can learn about what it takes for a student to get in). but yet college confidential does not have a high signal/noise ratio. It has a lot of noise - and some people are more impressionable than others - and consequently may take the mistaken advice of some posters here.</p>
<p>Now, as a general trend, an increase in opportunities to everyone will decrease variation in achievement due to environment (this is an interesting phenomenon described in “Learnable Intelligence” (Perkins 1994)). This is because external institutions influence the students less, which allows more students from poorer neighborhoods to try to achieve social mobility. The internet is one such avenue of offering opportunities to everyone (since anyone with a computer can access the information superhighway).</p>
<p>It seems that an inability to fit in with one’s school peers in the United States can be a recipe for success for certain individuals. There’s an interesting phenomenon - the “fear of acting white” - that is one factor that could explain the lack of academic success among blacks.</p>
<p>Of course. What else is new?</p>
<p>Um, as for the phenomenon of “acting white”:</p>
<p><a href=“http://courses.washington.edu/academy3/articles/Tyson,%20Darity,%20Castellino,%202005.pdf[/url]”>http://courses.washington.edu/academy3/articles/Tyson,%20Darity,%20Castellino,%202005.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyhow, this is not a debate about race. It’s about social status. And there may be a “burden” of high achievement pervasive in many poor cultures.</p>
<p>Great opinions and ideas and I value them all. So the action items should be:</p>
<ol>
<li> We need to tax the rich a lot more and use the revenue for the poor students educations by improving the quality of education in poor neighborhood school districts, like providing a SAT prep center, giving large incentives for teachers in inner city et cetra et cetra</li>
<li> Elite schools (ivies and the like) need to be more transparent in their so-called need-blind admissions. What I like to see happening is that those elite school adcoms are really playing by the book and are not giving any favor to the rich people. Otherwise, I say those adcoms are like used car dealers and only care about money.</li>
</ol>
<p>What do you mean playing by the book? There is no book. Transparant? They NEVER will be. The adcoms must follow the mandate from on high. Who pays the bills? Wealthy benefactors. If there are none, the adcoms are out of work. Honey, this might be hard to understand if you’re a kid, but it’s the way the world works. Get ready. The wealthy have the advantage in almost everything because money is power. You’ll see it in who gets what jobs after college and then in many ways through life.</p>
<p>UCgradmary: Unfortunately, what you say is true. The elite colleges do a few things here and there to help the less fortunate applicants, but for the most part it’s the same old same old, with the wealthy and the connected reaping most of the benefits. And, when the elite do something for the less fortunate, they make sure to publicize it.</p>
<p>Now, get ready. The next few posts will include derogatory comments about me, indicating that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But, those who don’t like me are usually the ones for whom my comments hit too close to home.</p>
<p>I hope you’ll stick with the “real agenda” here, post some good comments, and refrain from insulting me.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>I disagree, Stephen Balmer, CEO of Microsoft, son of a mechanic(I think), last time I checked he was up there in the list of the richest people in the world or maybe the USA. This country class mobility is awsome. I recently had a conversation with a Vietnamese Immigrant in a barbershop whose son is an executive in an big international oil firm, she said because her son is an executive he has to live overseas for some years, part of the executive training, she was not bragging, we were just chatting. Now I heard of a lot of sucessful doctors, engineers, and etc… but this is still impressive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ Thats defeatism. I dont know about you, but I believe that there are many opportunities in this country to make it big even though you are from the poor family. In particular, I always remember Clinton who was born and raised in a poor town Arkansas. His father was a traveling salesman, who died in a car accident three months prior to his birth. His mother, Virginia Dell married a man named Clinton, a partner (with his brother) in an automobile dealership. Despite al his unfavorable early childhood environment, Clinton rose to the top and has become one of the greatest presidents in US history. </p>
<p>I also believe its societys responsibility to provide those opportunities for all. In the same vein, the college, above all, should be transparent in admission regardless of how much money you have. If our society doesnt allow that, then we need a big change. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. Im flattered. But Honey dear.
I have found a new love, dear
And I will always want her near
Her lips are warm while yours are cold
Release me, my darling, let me go</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m an example of class mobility. I went to a college on full aid that I will be lucky to pay full price for my kids at if accepted. Even as legacies. But while we’re well off, we don’t get the pull the rich get. </p>
<p>Rabban, you’re young, hold on to your ideals. This is, however, a capitalist Country and money will always be power. Our society will not change.</p>
<p>Last time I look at the news, Paris Hilton was crying out for Mom when she was put back in Jail to complete the 21 day jail term( after thinking the judge was going to release her after 3 days). Rich and power, while I don’t deny they have some influence but I don’t think they always win.</p>
<p>The reason those refugees from Vietnam were able to do so well is because those people were in the upper strada of their society, or they would not have the ability to leave their country. People that came out of
Taiwan, China, India(and some other countries) are the best of the best of their countries. Number of tests those people had to take to leave their countries(legal immigrants) are beyond believes. Therefore, even if some of them were pennieless when they arrived at this country, they were highly educated people in their own countries. Not all Chinese, Indians (or Asians) are smart, but the ones that have made it to the States are.</p>
<p>Not for the Vietnamese, there are all kinds of people that left the country. But most people that left Vietnam, had to leave in a hurry and therefore did not get to gather their assets easily, there are always exception. But I know for most, the only thing they have is the determination not to go back and live under a communist country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree, I know some that parents barely had a 5th grade education but went on to became successful lawyers graduating from Columbia, etc… I think shes’ married to some Congressman from West Virginia(sorry my memory is fading and google won’t cooperate with me);)</p>
<p>I think the other Asian countries had a lot more wealth or are upper echelon, especially the Taiwan, the Korean, and Indian.</p>
<p>There are certainly those who beat the odds, especially among Asians. It has a lot to do with family and financial support. In Asian families it’s typical to pool money to strat a business or send a kid to an elite college. That is far less common in most American communities.</p>
<p>When you see that almost half the class at top colleges come from private high schools you need ask no more questions. Only a tiny fraction of American kids go to these private schools (we’re not including parochial schools) yet they are well represented at the top colleges. Someone has to pay for those who get the grants and wealthy families line up for the honor. </p>
<p>A colleague was shocked this year when his nephew was rejected from Harvard. He was a legacy with a 4.0/1400. Generations of his family had gotton in with much less. So times are changing a little. But those from top prep schools and social register families are still being accepted in huge numbers. It’s the middle class they are displacing though, not the poor. Top colleges search for the truly poor that have the stats.</p>