The College Admission Scam

Applying to College
101

<p>Sure, but how do you know the two students have the SAME INTELLECT? It might very well be the case that one has less intellect than the other.</p>

<p>If IQ were really a measurable, quantifiable, heritable, genetic trait, then we could use gene testing in Admissions. Take some saliva, put it under a microscope, and find out what the student’s “intellect” actually is. But it is far more complex than that, so we are left to ASSUME that the poor student has the same intellect because he or she didn’t get no enrichment and make admissions decisions based on this quasi-factual ASSUMPTION.</p>

102

<p>Well yes, navyarf. There is no specific case we can point to and say “This student should have gotten in because he was intelligent, but did not because he was poor.” And if such cases did exist, then the admissions staff would have noticed and admitted the guy, so they would be self-defeating.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem.</p>

103

<p>How about this for a solution? </p>

<p>Use State/Federal money to completely subsidize the education of intelligent lower-income students. We need to make money a non-factor in admissions and college choice. </p>

<p>How will we come up with this money? Reduce or eliminate subsidizing behavior at lower-tier open admissions state schools who invite almost everyone to attend, knowing full well that most of the kid’s aren’t learning anything substantial and that many will never complete college (yet they will be subsidized either by the State (in-state tuition) and Washington (grants) for pursuing the noble goal of education, in Obamaspeak). Let’s face it, most of these kids are wasting money, be it the State’s, Washington’s, or their parents. The money would best be used to fund the education of intelligent low-income students, who would develop human capital in college, and contribute to our economy. (unless of course they use their college education and ideas from left-leaning professors to become community organizers promoting the antithesis of the policy that paid for their education) . Subsidizing disinterested students to sleep in class and develop beer belly capital is stupid. There is no ROI. </p>

<p>Of course, this option would not be Obamapular, because everyone has a right to college. Right?</p>

104

<p>How about not funding public schools with local taxes? I think Vermont stopped doing this. They said that just because one town has a mountain and a ski resort doesn’t mean that their kids should get a better education. If all public schools were funded basically equally and taught a similar curriculum this would be a step in the right direction. Of course the wealthy would still have the option of private school but at least everyone would hopefully have access to labs, gyms, libraries, etc.</p>

105

<p>

</p>

<p>When you make an argument, you should be prepared to back it up with something when called on it; for instance, if I said “I found a fast polynomial time factoring algorithm! P=NP has been proven! Give me a million bucks!”, no one would believe me. It is better substantiated if I added “Here are the factors for RSA 2048, RSA 617, the encryption key for the TI-nSpire, and so forth” in a verifiable manner. Expert opinion is not necessarily trustable; for heaven’s sake, we have [cats</a> with academic degrees](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_with_fraudulent_diplomas]cats”>List of animals awarded human credentials - Wikipedia). Are they reliable sources of information? NO. Empirical data should form the backbone of every argument, not “Hey this professor at <university> with <degree[s]> said this”. </degree[s]></university></p>

<p>As for the wealth discrepancy problem, I recognize and agree that there is a very serious problem with inequality of opportunity due to differences in monetary background. But the way to fix this problem is NOT biased admission for the less qualified students, because that just leads to the exclusion of many intelligent people who ought to have been accepted and the inclusion of many people who are not, and thus a degradation of the average quality of research presented in the academic arena results.</p>

<p>The cause of the problem–inaccessibility of facilities–is the one thing we truly need to deal with. If everyone had equal capacity to access and utilize educational tools, then all the wealthier kids would get are better clothes and bigger houses, negligibly important in helping them get into college.</p>

106

<p>The two schools with the highest percentage of early admits were stanford and yale… two schools which have non-binding early action programs (so of course they admit more students- there’s a lower yield). I’m sure that has been pointed out earlier, but I just found that to be the point where I couldn’t continue reading with a straight face.</p>

107

<p>Aristocrat - I’m glad we’re on the same page regarding equal access to opportunities. It used to be something almost everyone agreed on but I don’t believe that’s true anymore. People in my state get incredibly bent out of shape that some of their taxes are diverted to poor schools even though our school already is so much better equipped than these other schools.</p>

108

<p>Hi, </p>

<p>I think a reason for the girl who didn’t get admitted earlier to MIT after a financial form was sent to her could be that MIT ran out of monetary aid. Thus, they have to limit the number of students who require financial aid. </p>

<p>Personally, I find that this kind of meritocracy, if true as the schools claim, is the best we can get. There is no way we can really redistribute the riches, and lowering academic standards isn’t really the way to go. If the schools can be more transparent, that will be good. Then, information can be more reliable than BostonGlobal. </p>

<p>Having a new school for the poor sounds too hard to maintain, since quality education requires good teachers and facilities which also need huge amounts of money. I doubt taxpayers would really agree to having a new school for the poor. If they really need aid, wouldn’t scholarships be enough? I see no need to herd those with less income into a ‘special’ school for intensive training. If you’re simply talking about giving them a chance to education, what we should start with is the public schools isn’t it? So that PS accepts more from low incomes. </p>

<p>I understand that for the same person, a wealthier growing environment generally gives better success turn-out rates than one in a poorer environment. But seriously what can you do to help this? No more than to offer scholarships, and to encourage them to learn, and hope that after their first encounter with learning, they will grow to like it and spend more time on it and eventually emerge as well-equipped as most middle-classes. Trying to group by ability is impossible and inaccurate at young ages, and offering aid to everyone, as I mentioned before, is even more impractical. </p>

<p>While I see some truth in the article, I feel that little can be done to improve the current situation. What I’d like to see is more transparency to help us decide, instead of the colleges insisting that they are need-blind while some journalists insist that there’s conspiracy behind it. </p>

<p>Arbres</p>

109

<p>I think elite universities should offer no-frills options. This is basically what they have in Europe. Part of the reason why college is so expensive is because of the upgraded dorms, fitness centers, sports programs, etc. People should have an option to pay less and not participate in this. I know it sounds harsh to have poor kids in stripped down dorms but I think they would thank their lucky stars to be there and to be given the opportunity to be in a great institution that they wouldn’t be able to afford otherwise.</p>

<p>The way it is now, it’s obvious that the schools are catering to the rich.</p>

110

<p>

</p>

<p>Fortunately, MIT doesn’t have any frills. It’s pretty much as stripped down as you can get.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>MIT doesn’t give full scholarships; they spread the money evenly among those admits that need it. If they “ran out” as you say, the financial aid packages would just be smaller.</p>

111

<p>I once attended a college admissions forum for parents run by an MIT grad. MIT sounded really great - they don’t give any preference to legacies at all. They seemed like they were really trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately neither of my kids was/is a candidate for MIT by any stretch of the imagination.</p>

112

<p>Amazon, your argument is dated. Those who understand public education in America no longer embrace the “all we need is more money” argument. For years, state governments have embraced that logic and have pumped money into public schools in Oakland, Los Angeles, Detroit, Kansas City, and Washington, D.C. The per capita amounts spent by those school districts over a 20-year period are mind-boggling. Those schools have all of the “technological advantages” of any public school in a wealthy area, and yet those schools perform worse today than ever before. As an example, the general math skills of eighth- and ninth-graders in Oakland were recently tested. One percent tested at the advanced level. Five percent tested proficient. And ninety-four percent tested below grade level, with a majority of those testing at least three grades below level. A test of basic algebra skills were given Oakland’s public high school students. The results were as follows: 0 percent tested advanced, 3 percent tested proficient and 97 percent failed the test. As another example, just three weeks ago, Detroit’s public schools posted the worst math results ever recorded in the 40-year history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress assessment, a prestigious nationwide test. Public schools in Los Angeles, Kansas City, Washington, D.C. also tested very low. These results follow a generation of pouring well above normal levels of funding into the districts. </p>

<p>Money is not the issue. Culture is. You can spend millions of dollars per child but if those children have no father at home, no mother, no encouragement from a role model telling them that education is the path to success, the money will be wasted. Likewise, you can spend a couple thousand dollars per child, and if that child has both parents at home and those parents have high expectations of their children, then that child will succeed. It’s that simple.</p>

<p>What’s complicated is that no one has the courage to speak the truth. When Bill Cosby started speaking the truth, he was silenced and called an Uncle Tom. Even President Obama came under attack by Jesse Jackson last year when he inferred that the black community needs to do better. President Obama has remained silent on the issue ever since. </p>

<p>Our black community has been programmed to blame others, usually whites, for all of our problems. We have come to expect others to provide for us. Our own “community leaders” tell us repeatedly that we cannot succeed, that the deck is stacked against us. That way, we remain beholden to them. We need them to protect and look after us. </p>

<p>In my land, Marcus Garvey is revered. I have his words on a poster in my room: “We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind. Mind is your only ruler, sovereign. The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind.” </p>

<p>Until a leader steps forward with the courage to speak this message, things will only get worse for us.</p>

113

<p>Why then do wealthy schools in my state have so much more stuff than schools in poor districts? If money isn’t important in education why is our district constantly trying to raise more money for our already terrifically endowed school? Why does my teacher friend’s school not have books or pencils? She doesn’t have a bookcase in her classroom and has to keep her stuff in a box on the floor. Go to the schools you’re talking about and see if they have working labs, gyms, computers, etc. Read “Savage Inequality”. </p>

<p>I know that many kids will still not learn, but at least give the other ones the chance.</p>

114

<p>^The correct title is “Savage Inequalities” and I’ve read it many times. It’s a book written over 20 years ago using data even older. It helped lead school districts to spend more money, much more. But even Kozol now acknowledges that money is not the primary issue. Parenting is. Ask your friend. I am confident she will tell you that school supplies are secondary, and that a child’s parents are the primary determinative whether a child will suceed of fail.</p>

115

<p>She does not feel that school supplies are secondary at this level of deprivation. She is trying to teach high school English without books. How many books did your English class have handed out per year?</p>

116

<p>^Please post or pm the name of your friend’s school, including city. I am writing a paper on public school education and have visited with 34 schools in the NYC area, the vast majority in the poorest areas. I have yet to visit one without books. I would be very interested in visiting your friend’s school and observing its plight.</p>

117

<p>OK. It’s in Jersey City.</p>

118

<p>^That’s ironic. I have all of the spending data sitting in front of me for the JCPS system. Please give me the name of the school, and I will tell you how much money they spend per pupil, their budget for supplies, etc.</p>

119

<p>I suppose the reason Amazon didn’t reply is because she was making up her claims. New Jersey spends over $14,000 per student per year, which ranks 2nd in the nation. Jersey City public schools spend over $16,000 per student, which makes it one of the – if not the – school district with the most money spent per child. Ironically, one of the best performing schools in New Jersey spends only $8,000 per child per year, and yet the Jersey City public schools, with twice as much money, are amongst the worst performing schools in the state and the nation. </p>

<p>Not content to rely solely on data, I called four public schools in Jersey City and spoke with a member of the administration. When I asked about textbooks, each one assured me that all Jersey City schools have plenty of books, with many having two per students – the very thing that Amazon scorned for “wealthy” school districts. They also have plenty of computers and other equipment. Each administrator quickly told me that the Jersey City public schools have an overall student/teacher ratio of only 11:1, which places it again at the top of the heap nationally. </p>

<p>Spending on public schools over the last decade is bankrupting New Jersey’s budget. Even the most ardent spenders in that state have come to accept that performance doesn’t following spending. Indeed, a regression analysis likely would show no significant coorelation at all. </p>

<p>I know nothing about Amazon, but I have listened to a number of upper middle class (most often) white people who love to spread stories about school districts with no books and poor little black and brown students who would be Rhodes Scholars but for a lack of spending. These people are stuck in the 1960s and are a big part of the problem. By perpectuating this falsehoods, people lose site of the true problems, and those problems go unresolved.</p>

120

<p>Re: the discussion a few pages ago between collegealum and raiderade:

This is, indeed, how it works at MIT – the financial forms are due Feb 15, and the financial aid office puts together a financial aid package for every single applicant. The financial aid office has no knowledge about which candidates have been admitted until they’re given a list of students who have been admitted around March 10, and the admissions office has no knowledge about how much aid each student needs.</p>

<p>So if a form is missing, the financial aid office will request it from the applicant. It’s not a suggestion that the applicant will be admitted (because the financial aid office doesn’t know that), nor is it a factor in the applicant’s admissions decision (because the admissions office doesn’t know about it). </p>

<p>Unfortunately, in the majority of cases where the financial aid office has to request additional information, the applicant will ultimately be rejected. That’s because the majority of MIT applicants are rejected in general.</p>