Yes, but this parent is looking for admission to top 20 colleges…
And that might be a mistake. Doing very well at a non T20 can place better, job wise, than a middling student at a top school.
In the application piles - yes. When you filter for high test scores maybe the picture is different. That’s what I am trying to find out but schools don’t disclose that level of detail, for understandable reasons.
I hope the OP has viewed the economics department analyses linked up-topic (Test scores of admitted students stratified by gender and ethnicity for top schools - #42 by merc81). These analyses have been developed and are maintained by volunteer social scientists and appear to offer quite credible information.
Maybe you need to look not at particular schools for the data you are searching for…but at College Board or ACT. They probably do have the data of how white women score of their tests. They also probably have it broken out by income and race.
I know Jon Boeckenstedt does a lot of data analysis of IPEDs info as well, you might want to check in on his blog.
If I am not mistaken, white women from higher income families usually score quite high on the SAT/ACTs. I think the only groups that routinely score higher are white men, asian men, and (maybe) asian women.
I am pretty sure that Top 10 schools aren’t low on high scoring, white women applicants. Like 99.9% sure.
Thanks, those are great points. A potential scholarship at a fine school where she would qualify for merit money could outweigh other factors.
She should also look at IU Kelley…she will be direct admit there, which is a great safety to have (assuming it’s affordable).
OP a few questions…
When you describe pursuing a career in finance what specifically are the types of jobs are you thinking about?
Does your daughter like math or have other academic areas of interest that are of specific interest? What is she really good at?
Does she want to study finance in college or would she prefer another area of concentration? What stirs her intellectual curiosity?
I ask these questions so you can focus on fit and pathway versus seemingly focusing on perceived limitations that might not be applicable or real.
Many of the tippy top schools don’t offer merit aid at all. So make sure you dig deep if this is something you would want.
For many of the most lucrative finance roles, if you are at a non-T20, you aren’t getting an interview.
We seem to be moving the goal posts.
We’ve gone from majoring in Econ to getting a job in finance to “the most lucrative finance roles”.
We are talking about a 17 year old kid- who may not know the difference between M&A, Portfolio management, Treasury, Bond financing, or derivatives (not that she should). But we’re all convinced she’s heading for “the most lucrative finance roles”- as if ANY of us can predict the labor markets and hiring trends 5 years hence?
Sharing a post from one of my favorite blogs on admissions trends. Drawn from IPEDS data, you can see where women or men appear to have an admissions advantage, disadvantage, or equal outcomes.
Thank you, this is a great resource
Absolutely. She has no idea what finance is beyond basic budgeting, lol
You may be putting the cart before the horse here! Why are you worried about her career prospects in finance- 5 years hence- if she doesn’t know what it is?
I’m not…just trying to maintain a wide range of options
A quote from Jon Boeckenstedt’s post that you linked:
Now, the caveat about the data: The fact that men or women as a group are admitted at higher or lower rates is really meaningless (or almost so).
Boeckenstedt’s post was written in response to articles in the media about how admissions “favors men” because there are so many women applying to many institutions and consequently, men are admitted at a higher rate. (For example, this article mentioned in the beginning of the post.) He’s arguing that it doesn’t really follow from the data that there are different standards for men and women or that one group is disadvantaged, because we don’t know enough about the applicant pools.
G-d decides who plays in the NBA while humans decide who gets finance interviews.
Probably better to avoid universal generalities in my experience but there is a kernel of truth to your statement.
From my perspective, it’s more than a kernel. I’m involved with the hiring.
In my experience companies that exclusively interview from top 20 are far more the exception than the rule. Far more typical are companies that recruit the vast majority of their junior staff from a limited number of target schools leaving some (but few) openings from other non target candidates. Often the target lists extend well beyond 20 and extend to historic relationship, employee alum or special circumstances.
Perhaps your experience is different.