<p>Oh, I agree. BUT (and unlike any of those Ivy considerations), what is the STATE’s interest in rewarding those who are already privileged? Why do they have to ration “perks” the same way prestige privates do, when legitimate state interests aren’t the same.</p>
<p>Sounds like another form of “affirmative action” for white folks.</p>
<p>At least at Schreyer, I don’t see any evidence of a preference for afflluent kids.
Many of the kids my s knows chose the program over places like Cornell, or Duke, or Johns Hopkins primarily due to the expense of these private colleges. If you’re in state, the cost of the state tuition minus the scholarship (only 3500) makes the differential pretty big for those folks who don’t qualify for financial aid. And no, I don’t believe that all those who don’t qualify for financial aid are “rich.” OK, they’re not begging in the streets, but 80- 100K income doesn’t buy a family a whole lot in an expensive metro area like Philly.
Mini, can you present some evidence that points to these state school honors kids being white and rich?<br>
And again, let’s keep in mind that many “state” schools (like PSU) receive very little funding from taxpayers.</p>
<p>If you read post #18, what I said applies (for the sake of argument) ONLY if honors admissions are being tied to SAT scores. (The associations between SAT scores and both family income and race are already well-documented.)</p>
<p>“And again, let’s keep in mind that many “state” schools (like PSU) receive very little funding from taxpayers.”</p>
<p>I don’t see how that as relevant. The charter of these schools is to serve ALL the people of the state; they aren’t private institutions. Now, if they’d like to turn away their state funding, that’s another matter entirely. (But then they’d also have to turn in their campuses as well.)</p>
<p>First of all the people who attend schools under their Honors programs presumably have “earned” that honor by out performing and working their peers. They perhaps, stayed home to study for exams while the BFF’s went out, partied or just watched TV. They have probably earned the right to attend some highly selective schools and the BENEFIT is to the STATE for keeping their best and brightest in the State. If you don’t see the benefit of having top students then you have never taught- schools want to attract top faculty and believe me they aren’t “dying” to teach the mediocre, just get by students any more than the high school teachers were. Jealousy is so unbecoming to grown ups. Compare apples to apples…why compare to your boss- compare to your co-worker who takes every sick day, vacations at the busiest time of the year, spends the day on personal calls and manages to stay just above the radar of management- yet you who work your full day, take sick days only when you need them, and perform your duties at a level of excellence- should you be paid the same as your co-worker? Should you not get a raise or bonus because he didn’t work to the same level as you? I doubt you’d be very happy with that- perhaps you’d want to find a place where the level of excellence is on par with that you display. This is one case where I see that things are “fair” the ones who have worked hard and made certain choices are rewarded and the ones who didn’t still have a chance to do so and be a part of the very same program- maybe the perks will motivate them to work at that same level.</p>
<p>“If you don’t see the benefit of having top students then you have never taught…”</p>
<p>I taught at the University of Chicago and at the Community College of Philadelphia. The students at the latter were much, much more poorly prepared. For the most part, however, they were more highly motivated - this was their “way out”. (To be fair, however, I was a better teacher at the latter - older, and likely more engaging. I just wish I had the resources for them that I had for the Chicago students.)</p>
<p>So how does a state school profit by having wealthier students attend. Well, again I use the “connections and opportunity” argument that I gave with the Ivy. How profitable might it be to a state college to have alumni that are rich and in positions of power or awarded worldly recognition? In addition, the school has now created an alumni that is very thankful and very tied to his school which may amount to years and years of donations.Why shouldn’t a state school have a right to spend money in hopes of greater returns?</p>
<p>Well, the deal is that in a place like PA, if ALL students are treated equally at the flagship U (no price breaks, no honors classes, no priority registration), then that flagship U loses some of its best and brightest students (regardless of income) - probably to another state. States have figured out different ways to deal with this. Virginia, Michigan and California have carved out a top school in their system to attract these kids. PA doesn’t really have an equivalent but the honors programs have been helpful in keeping top kids in state.
Do we also have problems with the UVAs of the world? Hey, that campus is beautiful, the professors are top notch and the kids are soooo lucky to be there. How is it fair that some kids have to settle for VCU?</p>
<p>“Well, again I use the “connections and opportunity” argument that I gave with the Ivy. How profitable might it be to a state college to have alumni that are rich and in positions of power or awarded worldly recognition? In addition, the school has now created an alumni that is very thankful and very tied to his school which may amount to years and years of donations.Why shouldn’t a state school have a right to spend money in hopes of greater returns?”</p>
<p>So is the argument that, since (for the sake of argument) the students selected by SAT for honors colleges are more likely to be white and wealthy, they should receive priority, not because they are necessarily better students or will “perform better”, but because they are more likely to wealthy in the future (because they were white and wealthy to begin with), and hence give back to their alma mater?</p>
<p>I think it is GREAT argument for a prestige private college (and is, in fact, the way they operate), but is the assumption that it really doesn’t matter as much if incoming poorer, less pinky-gray students are very thankful and very attached to their schools? Is it the state’s priority interest to ensure that wealth and power are likely to remain with those who enter with them? (Maybe it is, but I think I see larger and broader state interests than that.)</p>
<p>“Why should a regular student pay the same tuition and Fee when he/she does not get the same as the Honor students?”</p>
<p>Because if the honor students had to pay more for the honor of being an honor student, many would choose to go elsewhere, including to out of state colleges.</p>
<p>Particularly public universities use honor programs to raise the overall quality of their student bodies, and to keep more of the excellent high school graduates in state.</p>
<p>I’ve sat at an honors recruiting session with the dean of the honors college at a tier 2 public university. The parents of the honors students who were being wooed by the school asked what is the benefit for the school of bringing in their students and where does the money come from to do so.</p>
<p>The dean said the money comes from a combination of private donations and other students’ tuition. The benefit for the school is that it brings these talented kids to the school, where many will become leaders (e.g. the school newspaper editor), will be involved in research, etc. The regular students’ tuition that ends up being channeled to the honors kids is the price that these students pay for a more active, more academic and generally “better” school environment.</p>
<p>One question that it has never occurred to me to ask is: why should full pay students get no better deal than the full ride ones? Come to think of it, the full ride chum of my S has the better deal: he gets to store his stuff in my basement for free:) I’d hate for everyone to know how much one had paid for one’s college education just by looking at accommodations, etc…</p>
<p>The difference between a State U honor and UVA is the admission standard. Honor program typically has a set minimum test scores. In general, students from higher income families would have higher test scores. </p>
<p>A student from a low income family who work very hard in a relatively poor HS could get into UVA whose 25- 75% ACT is 26 to 31. That same student may not get into a state honor program because they may require a minimum of 30 on ACT.</p>
<p>“The regular students’ tuition that ends up being channeled to the honors kids is the price that these students pay for a more active, more academic and generally “better” school environment.”</p>
<p>In other words, this is the justification for affirmative action for wealthy white people. </p>
<p>“Particularly public universities use honor programs to raise the overall quality of their student bodies, and to keep more of the excellent high school graduates in state.”</p>
<p>IF they are using SATs as the governing characteristic, there is no evidence that they are actually raising the overall quality of the student body. But they are certainly raising the average family income and pinky-greyness of same.</p>
<p>DadII,</p>
<p>Often the State U simply can’t afford to evaluate each Honors candidate holistically. Instead they take the shotgun approach and select their Honors candidates by the numbers. Of the kids with the good enough SATs and GPAs, some turn out to be duds and others are worth the money and perks thrown at them.</p>
<p>Dad II. OK so, if the program has a holistic admissions process (like PSU Schreyer), then it’s OK??? No min test scores there…in fact they make a point of it. I’m sure there are others like it. Also, I know they reserve a few full scholarships for low income students. All in all, I believe it’s a mix of rich, middle, and low income students. Kinda like UVA…</p>
<p>“In other words, this is the justification for affirmative action for wealthy white people.”</p>
<p>This is the justification for affirmative action for the talented. A meritocracy, they call it.</p>
<p>“IF they are using SATs as the governing characteristic, there is no evidence that they are actually raising the overall quality of the student body.”</p>
<p>That’s a valid point, and one that I attribute to budget and logistics. The Honors program I mentioned before claims that their admissions are holistic, but rumor has it that they are basically numbers based.</p>
<p>“This is the justification for affirmative action for the talented. A meritocracy, they call it.”</p>
<p>They can call it what they like. If they use measures that pre-select for wealthy white folks, they will get wealthy white folks (without any evidence that they are raising the overall quality of the student body). </p>
<p>Now I can appreciate why private prestige colleges do that (as they do). State universities, however, do have competing interests, and I doubt that, if you asked voters, this form of affirmative action would rank particularly high. (But I could be wrong.)</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>I don’t know of any law, government program, policy or any other rule written by man that does not have unintended consequences, but what the school is TRYING to do is to improve the academic quality of its student body.</p>
<p>As far as the voters, they will always be against all forms of discrimination except when it benefits them directly. Given the makeup of the population, they will always oppose Affirmative Action (the real one, with capital letters,) Welfare, Immigration Reform and Merit Scholarships for the State U, regardless of how they are determined.</p>
<p>To TR’s # 35. I copy this from the PSU Schreyer site. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>looks like this is not number based. I am o.k. with honor programs like this.</p>
<p>to add to that, DADII, the entire student body at PSU acceptance rate is based 2/3 on HS GPA.</p>