Do the Wealthy Have an Advantage in Getting into Elite Colleges?

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Cultural, familial and peer expectations play a HUGE role.</p>

<p>For instance (granted, this is hardly scientific), I went to a highly regarded public school (which usually bested the highly regarded private school and city magnet school in the area) in an affluent town which also schooled kids from the surrounding towns (one, not as affluent, but still upper-middle class and the rest “working-class” towns).</p>

<p>The HS sent a lot of kids to the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Northwestern, Duke, UChicago, etc. every year, but the overwhelming % of the kids who got admitted to those schools came from my town and the neighboring upper-middle class town, despite all of the students having access to excellent teachers, resources, tutoring, etc.</p>

<p>(Since the HS was about 99.8% white – race doesn’t factor in here).</p>

<p>The kids from the more affluent towns expected to go to college (if not a top one) whereas for the kids from the less affluent towns, college was an “option.”</p>

<p>That’s not to say genetics (tho, it could be just familial expectations) doesn’t also have a role – interesting enough, kids of college professors, physicians and lawyers (and other parents with advanced degrees) seemed to do better academically than the kids of affluent parents who didn’t have advanced degrees.</p>

42

<p>k&s: Excellent post. Sensible, educational and thought provoking.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, the major problem of that is simple - it punishes people for success. You have to give people a reason to become successful, otherwise they won’t do it. Why should somebody work hard to become a doctor or investment banker or successful entrepreneur if they are just going to have their increased earnings taxed away? </p>

<p>I would particularly point to entrepeneurship and accompanying innovation as one of the key ingredients to what makes the US economy so successful. But let’s face it. Entrepeneurship is highly risky. Most new business ventures will fail or achieve only middling success. People will become entrepreneurs, and certainly investors will front venture money only if there is the possibility (however small) of a truly huge payoff. Take that possibility away and people won’t want to become entrepreneurs anymore but will instead opt for a safe and steady middle-class job (i.e. working for the government) and the entrepreneurial dynamism and innovation of the US economy will grind to a halt. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have another idea. How about a voucher system? Quality tends to improve as a response to market competition. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, these are private organizations and are therefore free to do as they wish.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>I see you’ve been checking out some of my old posts. </p>

<p>Regarding your notion of cultural capital and Asian success, I would say that you’re close, but not completely accurate. The truth is, almost all Asian-Americans are descended from immigrants who had themselves never attended a top US undergrad school. If their first-generation immigrant ancestor did attend a US school, it was almost always for a graduate degree. And plenty of them (i.e. Vietnam/Korean War refugees, Chinese fleeing Communism, Chinese who attracted to the California Gold Rush & railroad building, Japanese-American farmers) not only had probably never had any semblance of American higher education, many of them couldn’t even speak English when they arrived in the country. Heck, many of them were illiterate even in their native Asian tongue. </p>

<p>Yet their descendents were disproportionately able to figure out how to get admitted to the top US colleges. Their parents couldn’t really help them through first-hand knowledge, because they had never had to get admitted to a top US undergrad college themselves. Heck, to this day, many Asian-American parents still labor under the false notion that extracurricular activities are not particularly important and all you need is pure academic achivement. That is, after all, how admissions are run in universities in Asia. </p>

<p>The cultural capital of which you speak is therefore not the knowledge of how to apply to certain schools. It’s more fundamental than that. It’s the simple desire to know what is required to get into certain schools. Asian parents don’t have first-hand knowledge, but they do have the strong desire to gain second-hand knowledge, and they impart that desire to their kids. In short, while they don’t know how to get in, they WANT to know. </p>

<p>On the other hand, there are other students out there who simply don’t really want to know. They don’t want to spend the time to do the research and find out what it takes. Like K&S said above, a lot of them just don’t consider going to college, especially a top one, to be a high priority. </p>

<p>Hence, the cultural capital of which you speak is less transactional and pragmatic and more attitudinal. To invoke the old analogy, it’s not really about the old dichotomous fable of giving a man a fish vs. teaching that man to fish, but rather about the 'hidden third choice ’ - which is instilling in that man the desire to learn how to fish. If somebody just doesn’t want to learn something, then even the best teaching and best facilities in the world are not going to change the situation.</p>

45

<p>The wealthy have an advantage but not because they are wealthy. They have an advantage because they are generally smarter and work harder. That’s how they become wealthy. But, there are some very smart kids from poor families who could go to Ivies but don’t because they assume they can’t afford it. They don’t know how financial aid works. They should be encouraged to apply and find out whether the Ivy can make itself affordable. If they are Ivy caliber, they should apply.</p>

<p>Another point: Being poor is stressful. Stress can make it hard to be a good parent. Consequently, kids can be intellectually and neurologically impaired. Therefore, they don’t do well in school. Therefore, they can’t get into good schools. It is both nature and nurture.</p>

46

<p>michiganman- I haven’t checked this for a few days but I must reply</p>

<p>I am married to a man whose fathere worked in a factory, died when my husband was 10, they lived in the city of cleveland, his mother not only had 9 kids to care for, she never worked, never drove. He did not go to an elite school, (only 2 of them went to college at all), he was not overly gifted in academics (though a very good student and intelligent). When I married him he made $15,000 a year. Hard work, sacrafice and desire put him in a financial bracket only shared by 1% of the population. Are we Paris Hilton wealthy? NO! But he is successful in the buisness world, as a husband and father and certainly financially. People who say it can’t be done are either lazy, brainwashed or didn’t really want it in the first place. My parent’s were both educators, my father at a small university, my mother at a jr. high school. I always thought we were wealthy…not that we got everything we wanted- we didn’t. But we sure enjoyed life and didn’t spend it thinking the rest of the world had an advantage we didn’t. I know there are a million or more parents and students who can tell you stories about overcoming obstacles to reach their dreams and every single one of them will include hard work and sacrafice!! If you aren’t willing to do those things then you are right- you’ll never go further than you are today!!!</p>

47

<p>collegehelp: In post #45 you said, “The wealthy have an advantage because they are generally smarter and work harder.” </p>

<p>First: What is your definition of “smart.” I have known many wealthy who don’t have an ounce of common sense, or, if asked to build something or fix something, they don’t have a clue as to where to begin. Whereas, many of the poorer “idiots” know how to do those things.</p>

<p>Also, what do you mean that the wealthy work harder? Some of the most ambitious students are the less wealthy. They are the ones who hold after-school jobs, work summers, etc., while their wealthy counterparts don’t have to.</p>

<p>The next time you hire a carpenter, plumber, electrician or auto mechanic, remember that they are probably fall into your category of “less intelligent and less motivated” than your Ivy grads.</p>

48

<p>One has to remember that those of wealth who contribute and pay full price to schools ALSO enable that school to turn around and enroll disadvantaged kids. For example if the Bush family pays Harvard full price for their son to attend along with a generous donation to the scholarship fund and it allows Harvard to enroll 10 kids from lesser economic backgrounds… is that truly bad?</p>

<p>I thank my lucky stars everyday that my kids were given scholarship money to attend schools that would have cost us $85,000 a year for both. You see, we are one of those families who aren’t living the high life. If those families that are weren’t paying full price and bucking up… where would the free money come to my kids? </p>

<p>So yes, being wealthy helps to get in anywhere collegewise…but does it only help the wealthy kid? I would say “no”, it helps kids like mine too.</p>

49

<p>old but wise-
Generally speaking, wealthier families are smarter by any definition, including “common sense”. I know it is possible to cite examples to the conrary, but this is generally true.</p>

<p>Like you, I love Horatio Alger stories. I also believe in the American Dream. I think I acknowledged in my post that these kids deserve support. Too bad it doesn’t happen more often. In reality, poverty tends to breed more poverty.</p>

<p>Perhaps I should have said that the wealthy work smarter, not harder. They tend to spend their time on things that benefit them in the long run (like studying), not necessarily earning money. All work has dignity, but blue-collar jobs are generally harder and may not be the best use of a good student’s time. How enriching is flipping hamburgers?</p>

<p>As I said before, there are two injustices that relate to this issue. One is mother nature (genetics) and the other is the unhealthy homelife that often exists for children in poor families. The bad homelife results in social, emotional, intellectual, and neurological disabilities. It isn’t Harvard’s fault, its the parents’ fault.</p>

50

<p>collegehelp: To some extent, I do agree with what you say. But, I’m not so sure that the wealthy work smarter. I am more inclined to say that they probably spend time at home in an environment that is more conducive to better study habits. For example, many of the poor have no place in their homes designated as “study space.” Also, the poor have many other obstacles to overcome…things that the wealthy take for granted. For example, lack of healthy nutrition, the teen’s need to contribute to their family finances by having to work after school and on weekends, teenagers having to babysit for their younger siblings because parents can’t afford daycare, etc, lack of access to computers, etc. Also, many of the poor attend less effective schools than the wealthy. But, that doesn’t mean the poor are less ambitious or less intelligent.</p>

<p>Not so sure the rich are really any smarter or work any smarter…too many variables to make that statement with absolute certainty.</p>

<p>One interesting point, based on working in a public school for 30 years…the “less wealthy” were much less likely to have their parents do things for them, like college applications, etc. Many of the wealthy would hand in college apps where it was easy to tell that the parents did much of the application for them. Also, many of the less wealthy students would take more responsibility for doing financial aid forms, signing up for SAT’s, etc. than their wealthier counterparts. </p>

<p>As far as your statement that the wealthy have more common sense than their poorer peers, I have no idea where that came from. A comment like that reminds me of some of the old racist beliefs that some actually believed to be true.</p>

51

<p>old but wise-
How did you manage to read racism into my comment about common sense? You are such a jerk. You are an ******* for even mentioning the word racist in response to my comment.</p>

<p>You have no idea where that statement about common sense came from? Why don’t you check demographics of some crime statistics? Teen pregnancy statistics? Drug and alcohol abuse statistics? School absenteeism statistics? School disciplinary statistics? Drop-out statistics? Unemployment statistics? Which planet are you from? You worked in public schools? Open your eyes.</p>

<p>Why shouldn’t parents help their kids with college apps and financial aid? That’s good parenting. They should not do the essay for them, though.</p>

52

<p>collegehelp: My apologies…I think you misinterpreted what I said. I was not implying in any way that your post was racist. It certainly was not racist at all.</p>

<p>All I was saying is that to say the poor are less intelligent, less motivated and have less common sense that the wealthy is to unfairly categorize them and make generalizations about them because of their socioeconomic status. It’s unfair, just as making generaliztions about groups due to their race, religious beliefs, etc. is unfair.</p>

53

<p>old but wise-
Do you not think that poverty is diabolically destructive to human potential? Most of the rest of the world does. I think it is important to say what is generally true or else there will be less incentive to fix things. If families can’t be strengthened, poor people aren’t going to get into the Ivies at a higher rate. Should the causes and destructive effects of poverty not be discussed plainly? Intellectual ability and character are created by families during the first decade of life.</p>

54

<p>Collegehelp: I think you need a lesson in sociology. Virtually everything you mentioned in Post #51 (absenteeism, pregnancy, crime, unemployment, etc.) has little to do with the fact that the poor are “not as smart, lazier, and have less common sense” than the wealthy.</p>

<p>Think about the sociological reasons behind those things. Why would there be more crime in areas where poverty exists versus the wealthy suburbs where million-dollar homes exist? Why would there be more absenteeism? Why would there be more unemployment? Is it because the people who live in poverty are “not as smart, don’t have as much common sense, and are lazier”, so they get what they deserve? Or, might there be sociological reasons for those things?</p>

55

<p>Further, the Ivies are outstanding institutions and they play an important role in our society. But, are they one more example of institutions that perpetuate maintaining the status quo class system in our society? Although they have some poorer students, do the elite colleges still cater to the wealthy? Do they prefer an the Exeter student over the rural public school grad who has credentials that are just as good?</p>

56

<p>old but wise-
I think it is you who needs the sociology lesson. How do you think adverse sociological conditions create their debilitating effects? They take their toll by inhibiting intellectual, social, and physical development of individuals, mostly through damage done to the most fundamental sociological institution: the family. Adverse sociological conditions stunt intellectual growth and they distort character development. To state the fact that poverty takes a toll on people in the ways I named is not to blame them.</p>

57

<p>But, to state that the wealthy are smarter, have more common sense, etc. is a much too simplistic generalization.</p>

58

<p>YES, YES, AND MORE YES. of course they have an advantage. </p>

<p>however, the wealthiest people aren’t always the smartest, and definitely not the most hard working, especially not the kind that INHERIT their money. to claim that “the richer you are the smarter” is idiotic.</p>

59

<p>Counterexample: Paris Hilton</p>

60

<p>old but wise-
Would it help if I said that “on average” people in higher socioeconomic levels are smarter, more ambitious, and have more common sense? We are talking about overall differences. I know there are exceptional students from lower income levels but the proportion is smaller. </p>

<p>Perhaps it makes sense to distinguish between ability and performance. There are no doubt some lower income students who have great ability but don’t do well in school because of stressful conditions and other distractions. However, if they do well in school, I think the Ivies and other elite schools will make themselves affordable if they send in an application. I would even say that low income students might have an edge getting in because of diversity efforts.</p>

<p>you’llsee-
Just to clarify, I am saying that being smart and hard-working comes from having good parents and leads to (1) greater family wealth and also leads to (2) higher academic achievement which can, in turn, lead to acceptance into an elite college. I am not saying that money makes you smart.</p>