It is actually a small number. If we assume that 29% of people age 25+ have bachelor’s degrees in the US, and that people who have kids choose each other randomly with respect to educational attainment, then 50% of parental couples will have no bachelor’s degrees between them. Of course, actual choice tends to result in higher likelihood than random of choosing similar educational attainment, so the percentage is likely higher than 50% of parental couples having no bachelor’s degrees between them. If we assume that the number of kids per couple is similar regardless of educational attainment, we see that first-generation-to-college students are extremely underrepresented at 15% at HYPSM. Of course, as noted in post #198, the pipeline of first-generation-to-college applicants with qualifications to be possibly admitted to such schools is tiny.
But remember, HYPSM is only a small outlier population among four year colleges and universities, so they may not be representative of the universe of such, despite common perception (which has derailed the original point of the thread into side discussions about cultural patterns in applying to super-selective schools, rather than the likely much larger effect of immigration selection for educational attainment).
@ucbalumnus - respectfully, you seem to have missed the whole point of my post about academic qualification. The problem needs to be addressed way before kids hit college age. And that’s to the extent it’s even addressable - hasn’t that been your thesis for this entire thread The reason I focused on HYPSM was that the comment I was responding to was about selective colleges and I happen to know those particular numbers. (And yes, assortative mating by education is very strong in the US, and it’s getting stronger. Womens’ choice, if you ask me :).).
I’m not sure what your involvement in the world of higher education is, but I’d say that First Gen has been the hot focus area for selective college admissions for at least the last 4 years now.
“Hmmm…what would happen if selective colleges gave a much bigger boost to applicants whose parents don’t have college degrees?”
Would parents with college degrees claim that they were being “discriminated against”, or would they be bright enough to get the distinction between trying to up the number of X and trying to limit the number of Y?
I know the author of this statement meant this strictly as a statement of fact and wasn’t expressing any personal point of view.
But speaking as a US citizen, I for one hope this never happens. I hope that the patterns of immigration into the US keep selecting for Asian immigrants of significantly higher educational attainment until the end of time. You tell me that as a country we have the chance to have people (Asian or otherwise) who are smart, well educated, work hard, are good citizens, invest in their children, and have strong families immigrate to America? Tell me where I can sign up !
BTW - I think the whole thesis of this thread that immigration patterns account for academic success is one of those very true facts that is also quite misleading. It purports to be an “explanation”, but actually is a bit of a red herring. But I have to go back to work, so I can’t write more now.
196 - it would be more interesting for me to hear the response in this thread to the question of what would happen if we stopped giving a boost to anyone. Disregard race and everything else and let each app stand on its own merits.
203 - only in an alternative dimension where 2+2 no longer equals 4.
What do you mean by “merits?” Do you mean grades and scores? So you want to give a boost to people who spend all their time studying? Or do you mean the merits of the application as a whole, in which you consider all aspects of the kid’s background? If so, we still need to know what aspects deserve more of a boost.
206 - this may not be a direct enough answer to your question but call it my first draft.
Ronald Nelson and my kid will likely have very similar apps. Sub XC/track for saxophone, but otherwise the same. Same APs, same test scores, GPA, leadership, etc. Same SES, same region of the country, etc.
There is only one distinction I can come up with, and that is race.
Ronald Nelson can pick any school in the country he wants to study at and go. To the extent my kid can study at any one of those schools is a long shot at best. If we don’t find an “AND” I guess we are screwed.
What would happen if Ronald Nelson’s app and my son’s app were treated no differently, and they had the same likelihood of acceptance? Is this the acceptable or unacceptable process and outcome? This is what I mean.
Going along for a moment with the lowering standards proposal to let in many more first-in-family: Does anyone know what the outcomes are for kids that go to the most competitive schools on a 600 point SAT handicap?
“Disregard race and everything else and let each app stand on its own merits.”
Assuming by own merits - you mean some kind of SAT scores or similar …you do that - you’re going to wind up with a VERY disproportionately upper middle class / wealthy student body. Probably even more wealthy-skewed than what we have today at elite schools. That ok with you?
@LOUKYDAD Umm, you do know the Ivy League schools, and other elite private schools like Stanford, give “bumps” to things like geography (you are more likely to get in if you are from an under-represented state like Wyoming) and legacy. When I was at Columbia, they were quite candid that the biggest “bump” went to legacy applicants. So even if race weren’t considered, there’s no guarantee your kid or any other kid would get in. Why the focus on race? Ivy League schools are trying to build a class of interesting people. If “merit” just means who gets the highest GPA and highest SAT, it would be a boring class indeed.
I thought that was what I was asking? Why do you think we should focus on it? I would prefer not to.
Why is a kid from Memphis assumed to be more interesting than a kid from Louisville just because of the color of his skin? They had Elvis, but we have Muhammad Ali.
PG - Based on the premise of this thread, we would end up with disproportionate number of Asians also, correct? Short answer - yes I am ok with it.
Hmmmn, by that posit, what makes dozens of kids from the UES more interesting than someone from Red Hook? Well, for one, I don’t think, “interesting” is what they are really after, more than balance and reflective of society as a whole.
I think it’s OK to acknowledge that it might be possible to “disregard race . . . and let each app stand on its own merits” without having those “merits” be limited to “SAT scores or similar” or even test scores, GPA, and STEM competition scores.
Plenty of people would be happy to see applicants of all races who had overcome tremendous odds get a boost in admission, even if that meant admitting some people with lower SAT scores than might be admitted otherwise. That’s different from giving a boost to URMs from wealthy suburban families where the parents have multiple professional degrees from fancy schools.
Now, now PG. I really wanted you especially to like my joke. I am disappointed we missed out on a rare opportunity to laugh together!
POTUS #43 was a cheerleader at Yale, but he was never editor of HLR.
Don’t you feel better now! You should go back and “like” my joke right now just to make it up to me.
On another note (#211 & #213), when a southern white male can shoot the moon at all the elites, with a boost from the hook of being from an under-represented state, please get back to me.
@JHS - I think you make good points (though I believe the researchers already corrected for superscoring). Wouldn’t surprise me if you were right. Doubling the numbers would give 50,000 FirstGen kids in the top 10% by scores. Personally, I think having 1100 FirstGen students per year at just the 5 HYPSM schools from a pool of just 50,000 is quite respectable.
Favoring first-generation-to-college applicants does not necessarily require lowering standards, if it is merely the recognition that, like for other disadvantages, an achievement result from a disadvantaged starting line actually indicates a higher level of achievement compare to the same result from an advantaged starting line (obviously, this is more of a holistic evaluation).
Of course, many of the super-selective schools have legacy preferences, meaning that they presumably give an extra boost to applicants who are much more likely to be advantaged to begin with (i.e. none are first-generation-to-college, and the super-selective schools’ graduates who are their parents are probably highly represented in advantageous situations with underrepresentation of poverty or other disadvantage).
Note that characteristics of college admission process other than the actual standards (holistic or otherwise) can also affect how likely first-generation-to-college students are to apply. Extensive application requirements (e.g. SAT subject tests, counselor recommendation, teacher recommendations, interviews, CSS Profile) can be roadblocks to application for first-generation-to-college applicants who do not find out until too late that they are needed (and such students are more likely to attend high schools where highly selective colleges are not on the radar of counselors, teachers, and other students who mostly aspire to the local community college or some such).
The reason I focused on HYPSM was that the comment I was responding to was about selective colleges and I happen to know those particular numbers. (And yes, assortative mating by education is very strong in the US, and it’s getting stronger. Womens’ choice, if you ask me :).).