If the NYT article is supposedly focused on achieving SES diversity rather than racial diversity, then why is the article’s accompanying graphic a drawing of a pennant with different colored faces?
Just what examples I read in the paper, and not sure that such things exist in the inner city, particularly those high-SES country-club sports:
Because the NYT assumes their readers can look beyond the pictures and read the words?
No, it’s sloppiness on the part of the editor. If I were writing an article about bike lanes i wouldn’t illustrate the article w a photo of a unicycle.
Perhaps the NYT recognizes that poor kids come in all colors. I honestly didn’t even notice the faces until I looked again just now - I think you’re reading more into it than is there.
The article is clearly not about race, except for the line about how SES diversity may be a way to legally achieve race-based diversity of the SC rules against AA.
Perhaps they should try to diversify their admission staff - particular the deans. Excluding HBCU and Women’s colleges - what percentage of deans are white males?
Again, why illustrate an article about biking lanes w a photo of a unicycle? Sloppy…
We’re not taking about podunk HS newspaper here, but the bigass NYT.
You can read a slightly different version of it without the “inaccurate art” you can’t seem to get past:
The illustration issue is likely related to the fact that SES is often not visible at first glance, compared to race or ethnicity. That is likely why most people think of race or ethnicity first when “diversity” is mentioned.
Lower SES students go to college to get a job because they do not have the luxury of time and a good family situation to fall back on. Many pick professions where employment is far more likely: STEM professions, nursing, medical areas etc. etc. that offer employment immediately after graduation. It is no surprise that most students at those highly selective LAC’s , many of which are designed to prepare students for professional and graduate school, have students who are mostly from families with a higher SES.
It’s interesting that there weren’t any Ivy League finalists for this award (were there last year? I only know Vassar won). Or maybe not surprising, given the other thread on poor kids at Ivies.
@TooOld4School two of the finalists this year were Stanford and Rice, which aren’t LACs. But I understand your point.
This is the problem JCK is trying to help solve with this program, of which the ward is one part: http://www.excellencegap.org/true-merit
Of course, this problem mainly comes down to money that colleges have and are willing to spend. Admitting more students from low income backgrounds and offering them sufficient financial aid to attend costs more money than doing so for students with less or no financial need. SES affirmative action impacts the college’s bottom line in a way that other types of affirmative action (e.g. race/ethnicity) affect much less.
That assumes that many from the 'hood want to attend tony, private colleges. Many don’t.
So, having to attend the instate public (gasp!) is “failing” our students? Seriously, is that what JKC implies?
The instate public is often not affordable for low income students, @bluebayou . Only a handful of states meet need for all instate students - I live in a state that does not.
That said, the retention and grad rates for poorer students are much higher at elite colleges (public or private) than they are at most state schools.
Perhaps not, But if they are high performing students throughout K-12, they may in fact want to and if they do they are more likely to graduate.
^ they’re saying the college’s selectivity/resources/etc does matter.
Retention and graduation rates tend to track admission selectivity (and, to a lesser extent, choices of major and other characteristics of students besides family income). One might still be able to compare retention and graduation rates compared to expectations adjusted for admission selectivity and other characteristics to see if a given college has a treatment effect on them, but the differences are likely smaller than comparisons of raw retention and graduation rates may imply. For students from lower income families, such treatment effect may be in part due to affordability (cost and financial aid).
not really.
The real question is do high performing low income students graduate at a higher rate from a top private than similar high performing low income students graduate from a public?
yeah, I get that, but JKC can address that by providing scholarships to such kids.
The comparison might be selective/well endowed institutions vs those that are not, rather than a private/public comparison, as there are very selective publics and not selective privates.
But a simple private-public comparison of low income grad rates is here: http://www.cic.edu/Research-and-Data/Making-the-Case/Pages/Low-Income-Student-Graduation-Rates.aspx
I think what you’re asking though is if high-achieving (high GPAs, test scores, etc) students attending elite schools graduate (on time) more often than those with similar stats who choose a not-selective school like a directional or a lower tier private. Right?
True, which is why an answer to the above question would be interesting to see. We know Pell kids graduate on time more often at elite schools than they do at others, but we don’t know if the same high performing in HS kids do better at one or the other. I haven’t seen a study on that.
The gap in grad rates between low, mid and high income kids is higher at less selective institutions.
http://priceonomics.com/ranking-the-best-and-worst-colleges-for-low-income/
However, it does not control for whether the students from low income families have similar incoming academics as those from high income families. It is certainly possible that, at a less selective school, the incoming academics of students from low and high income families differ significantly.
Note also that admission rate is not a good proxy for admission selectivity.
nope, the feds are spinning and/or statistically challenged. And even they admit it, O-mom:
They don’t even try to claim a correlation; instead, they use a weasel word, ‘seem’.
The point being, unless we can control for the kids who are Yale- (ranked third among national universities in US News and World Report…") -qualified, and see how they do at Cal State Fullerton (not ranked third), we really can’t say their grad rate would be different.
As Homer would say, Doh!.
The bottom of the class at Yale (bottom quartile is 1410 SAT) is years ahead of nearly everyone at Cal State Fullerton (top quartile = 1130). OTOH, the bottom of the admitted Frosh at CSUF require remediation – math AND English; bottom qua rile = 930 SAT. In essence, they get to spend the first year (or two) of college repeating several/many high school courses.
Apples and oranges…