It is in their own interest to succeed… therefore, it is in their interest to strive for more socioeconomic diversity?
I just took a few minutes to read the posts in this topic. I am curious why people who are considered upper middle class (or rich) are looked down upon. I would think it would be the reverse and there would be some acknowledgement of their achievements. I wonder if the same comments were made about poor people that have been made about richer ones, who that be ok?
My parents both grew up middle to upper middle class and one went to boarding school and one went to public school. They have both achieved great success in their own fields, and I and my siblings are very proud of them. They have satisfied a lot (though that was their choice) and I am confused why they are considered “bad” for trying hard and doing well. Just my two cents but all this talk seems very un-American and unhelpful to me.
@Wannaboard,
Would you please elaborate if and why you feel that rich are looked down in this thread?
I didnt mean just this thread but others as well. There was one that referenced the clothes that some of the richer kids parents wore (tennis clothes, etc) and that some might have arrived by helicopter. How is that right? My parents work over 70 hrs a week each (and have been for 30 years) and if they want to wear golf clothes to parents day is that a crime? Sorry if I am getting sensitive but it all seems unfair.
I’ve written a lot in this thread and I certainly don’t look down on wealthy people.
Except I guess to say that if the financial aid cohort at any given school were to be opened up to admittance based primarily on academic achievement and intelligence then that cohort would on average be quite a lot brighter than the full pay cohort. Looking at the numbers of less well off students versus those who can afford $60k per year, and the achievement data (limited as they are) that we do have from the schools, I can’t see how this could not be the case. That strikes me as fair because intelligence is fairly randomly distributed within a particular economic class even if there maybe be differences on average between the classes (rich are on average smarter)
I also think having a smarter financial aid cohort would lessen socioeconomic class tension (the subject of this thread) and would also benefit the schools. How could it not help having smarter kids around in a learning institution?
Again I don’t think anyone is saying that elite schools should or must take in financial aid kids.
I don’t recall anyone here criticizing people who have worked hard and achieved financial success.
I agree with @CaliMex, and @SatchelSF too, except that I said admitting FA students with unremarkable academic achievement also benefits the school and student body due to the increased diversity. I don’t look down riches.
I feel sorry to hear what you have experienced from elsewhere. Life seems is indeed unfair.
Me neither, but I’d make the point that the children of those who “worked hard and achieved success” didn’t actually do anything to achieve that family success, so perhaps should be looked at pretty much like other kids. Or perhaps even as kids without significant financial hardships and all that entails in terms of social and academic achievement.
What was I trying to say is everyone comes from a different set of advantages and disadvantages, and that includes those from high income families as well. Maybe both parents work and dont get to be home as much as some other parents with more traditional jobs. Maybe someone is born a great athlete, a gifted musician, etc. I think if you try to rebalance some candidates then you end up hurting others and create a cultural of unfairness (when you are trying to do the opposite).
@Wannaboard, It’s only unfair if you consider being able to full pay and/or having better academic achievement should be the only admission criteria. They are important factors, but not the only factors. Beside, admission policy is designed for the school’s interest, and not to be fair to individual applicants. They don’t claim otherwise.
Individually, it’s quite resentful to be rejected when someone who can’t pay and/or less qualified than you are accepted. I was, to say the lest, unhappy with my daughter’s admission result last year although it turned out to be good for her. and I know I might be resentful for my daughter’s own rejections in college admission result.
College admission in some countries, even the private ones, are purely merit based. My daughter would benefit from such policy. She would also benefit greatly if @SatchelSF has his/her way and financial aid students admission becomes purely merit based. Did I mention that my daughter earned enough college credit for Junior transfer, with nearly perfect grade, even before entering high school? Yet she was wait-listed by Exeter, SPS, Emma, and rejected by all other schools except two lesser known, one of which she is a sophomore now, very satisfied with, and unbelievably royal to. Alas, academic admissions in the U.S. is not purely merit based and for some good reasons too.
Individually, it’s best to focus on maximizing within the existing system that one can’t really change.
The system as is have many flaws. Colleges allocate some sort of racial quota for the greater good and their own benefit. Yet individually, many if not the most of the racial quota are taken by not-so-disadvantaged minorities, and many economically and socially disadvantaged Whites and Asians can’t really win.
Do BS teachers know who is on financial aid and who is full pay? Is it assumed that most day students are full pay? I wonder if the teachers have any perception biases toward thinking kids are smart, average or below average, and whether such biases impact the student’s performance. Ie, if the teacher thinks the student is smart, they must be smart therefore this paper must be good therefore it gets an A. FWIW - I see such biases in public school (for different reasons).
My guess is they do not know. They probably know or can tell via legacies the opposite. At some schools, faculty do serve on admissions committees and I wonder if they might in that case.
@sunnyschool, my experience is that teachers don’t know who gets FA or doesn’t, neither do the other students. Someone may infer pay status from legacy status, although the two are not necessarily correlated.
Wealth does much to create expectations. Upper-class families, whether they’re 10%ers or 1%ers have expectations when it comes to elite educational institutions. Many other families don’t. I thought about this again just now with regards to testing and outcomes with the SSAT. A lower-middle class family might not have any expectations of success at an elite institution, and when a major, major setback hits, they have no will to keep going. It’s much easier when you know even if your kid doesn’t get in at St. Paul’s that they will at Hotchkiss or whatever.
^From what I’ve seen plenty of very “average” wealthy kids find their way into even the most elite boarding schools. Nepotistic admissions are no doubt much higher than anyone is willing to admit at many of these schools. A 61% SSAT score as mentioned by @GnarWhail in another thread would not pose a problem for many.
Hint: The kids who come back from Xmas break talking about skiing in Gstadt are probably not the ones on FA.
For most schools, it makes perfect sense to show preference to those with higher economic status. To an extent, accepting kids into their schools is an investment. Admiting kids who are rich or don’t need FA are a much better investment than giving away scholarships and FA. Kids who have money will already have a head start in life after schooling. These same kids will probably go on to good colleges if they have motivation. By admiting kids who need FA, they are earning less money than a kid without FA. If I wer the admitions staff, even if a kid that needs FA was much smarter than a kid who who doesn’t need it, I would pick the kid on full pay. Also for each kid who doesn’t need financial aid, you can at least accept an even better student who needs FA. Kids on scholarship (if the scholarship is from the school) are literal burdens to the school. The school is hoping that kids on scholarship will either become successful and/or donate to the school. No school will ever accept an FA kid if they are on par with a kid who will full pay. Something else to think about is that not only will kids with money most likely will see success in life, if they enjoyed their time there they are more likey to have the money to send their kids there.
I thank God you are not “the admitions staff.”
@someone3301: Almost everything you posted is not true. I’m assuming you are a kid just making assumptions, and that’s OK, but the experienced posters here can help you understand why your guesses are incorrect. Every one of the schools discussed here has a financial aid budget specifically set aside to attract those wonderful, bright, interesting students who need monetary assistance to attend their schools – they actively seek these students and go to great lengths to ensure that applicants know what financial aid is available to them. These schools know that each student they select, whether FA or FP, will enrich the communities they build each year. They are not looking to build any homogeneous incoming classes. They also know that the ability to succeed in their communities and beyond should not be gated by a student’s financial means, so they use a portion of their endowments to provide opportunities for some wonderful but less privileged students to enter their gates. Yes, they are businesses, and they do have to set limits on how much FA they can offer each year, but every one of these schools is committed to those budgets and the students who benefit from them. And, yes, they do show “preference” for full-pay students (the ratio of FP-to-FA students at most of these schools hovers in the 60/40 to 70/30 range) because they have operations to run, but FA budgets tend to increase rather than decrease over the years indicating the schools’ commitment to closing the access gap.
You are also making a false assumption that FA kids do not attend great colleges and go on to have interesting, productive, successful lives. That is part of what these schools help them to achieve, the same as wealthier students. FA students, too, give back to their prep schools and send their kids to them; I’m not sure how you concluded that they don’t. It is also untrue that all FP kids are somehow destined to do better in life. It doesn’t work that way. The gift of a stellar high school education is a great foundation for future academic and life success no matter where you start on the financial scale.