Northeastern University knows how to play the rankings game. Unlike most other schools, Northeastern doesn't require an additional supplemental essay. It's easy for students to apply to Northeastern because all they have to do is submit the application they've already completed for other schools. So the number of applications has skyrocketed, the acceptance rate has gone down, and Northeastern's ranking has gone up. In 2003, the school ranked #127 on US News. Now it's consistently in the top 50.
To retain top students Northeastern gives generous financial aid. It's the middling and bottom students who end up graduating with enormous debt. It's really not uncommon to hear horror stories about Northeastern alumni struggling with 6-figure debt. So, please, do your research on alumni and see how they fare financially after graduation.
6
Paul Tough -- Did you ask for the racial/ethnic/legacy-admission breakdown of the bottom GPA 33% of the Trinity class after freshman year? And compare that to overall demographic of the class? Surely they have that information, and it would tell us a LOT about who is qualified to be there and who is not.
4
If colleges are concerned about admitting enough students who can pay full tuition, imagine how important it is that they admit students whose parents can donate enough to name a building? Or just the equivalent of 20x the tuition costs? Or 100x the tuition costs.
Some would say this is fine, and I agree it might be fine if colleges would just admit that the top 1% are admitted over middle class students whose accomplishments are far better and the top .01% are admitted with academic accomplishments that would not even get them past the first pile if they were not extremely rich, unless they also happened to be a designated athletic recruit.
It used to be that we all understood that mediocre students like George W. Bush and Donald Trump filled many seats at Ivy Universities that also admitted some very bright kids as well. Now the Ivies want to have their cake and eat it too. Pretending that Ivanka Trump's and Jared Kushner's brilliant high school records were so superior to the hundreds of rejected middle class students applying that year that Harvard and U. Penn clearly needed to admit them.
Let's start making it clear. If your parents are in the .01%, you got in over other more deserving students. And there are more of those very entitled students than very poor students who got admitted via affirmative action.
4
Would like to thank Paul Tough for writing this article, very educational. Thanks to NYTimes for providing a platform for folks like Paul and many others who educate folks like me. I am glad to be a paying patron knowing that some of the money goes towards this noble effort.
If universities which house so many professors can't get their act together, imagine the difficulty for ordinary folks to walk the "right" line. This brings up the question if providing access to higher education without regard to money is a valid goal. For much of history giving access to higher education for masses hasn't been a reality. The improvements in every sphere of life when that became possible is quite clear. So are we reaching the point of diminishing returns - is it even a correct metaphor, what is the role of govt in this, etc.
2
The article clearly states that the root cause of increasing costs and a driving factor in admissions decisions is the US News & World College Rankings. The rankings push schools to spend more on the variables included in the rankings. The admissions officers are making decisions so as not to drop in the rankings. WE, parents and college consumers, can stop this. STOP looking at these rankings. Stop reading USNWR articles, Stop using rankings to make any decisions. Become your own educated consumer of the process. Last year when my oldest was going through the college admissions process I joined a fabulous Facebook group (Paying For College 101). They taught me how the system works (similar to what is described in the article). They opened my eyes to the game of how to find merit scholarships. and they pushed me to ask colleges questions (and get answers) about post graduation results and job placement. Do your research like you would for any other major expense in your family. Do what's right for your family and your child, don't chase brand names for the sake of a name, and don't put your retirement in jeopardy because colleges can't control their own expenses.
8
I take issue with the idea that applying to community colleges or public/state schools are "self-destructive decisions." Public colleges are literally designed to provide a quality education at an affordable rate, and most offer financial aid and a wide variety of scholarships. Their populations are mixed economically and racially, and the shock of living among the children of the affluent is less to absorb. I have worked at both private and public schools--while the networking is much better at privates, the outcome and return on investment appears to be negligible. Private schools rest on the laurels of ROI--but they never mention that many who attend the schools already come from affluent families rich with connections. Many are, in fact, literally cousins already.
6
The problem is that we pretend admission to these institutions reflects actual merit, rather than family income. Let's stop calling this system a meritocracy. Every time one of these articles appears in the times, parents come out of the woodwork to brag about their kids who attended Ivy League schools. In my mind, there is a little asterisk next to that information. What factors led to admission? Did the student play lacrosse? Come from a rural state? No doubt there were private tutors and admissions counselors. Maybe the family donated money, or even bribed someone. Who knows? We should stop being so impressed by degrees from these schools.
4
This is like treating tainted water without fixing the sewer system. It's remarkable how many of our problems share the same root cause - income/wealth inequality. The working class can't afford an education. Colleges can't afford to do much about that, lest they go out of business. And, why are we here in the first place? Because our elected officials depend upon the wealthy for campaign donations (and won't bite the hand that feeds them). The good news is, America wants a revolution (Obama 2x, Trump 1x, and both ran against the system). The bad news is, it takes a while, a revolution. So, sit tight, if you can . . .
2
Elite schools' claims of striving for diversity fall flat when you consider that schools such as Harvard have instituted quotas against Asian students because there are supposedly "too many" of them. The American government's appellation of "Asian" comprises people with origins from over 30 countries. Apparently that isn't diverse enough?
7
The author cynically attributes SAT outperformance vs. GPA to "expensive test prep". News flash: a 3.0 GPA at a high quality high school is not the same as a 3.0 GPA at an underperforming one.
5
But a 4.0 is, and that's the author's point.
As a volunteer admissions interviewer for my school, I can assure you that the admissions committee (at least ours) are well aware of the quality of the applicants' schools. They also look at the academy rigor of the courses on the transcripts.
6
And a 3.8 at a top public magnet school with average SAT scores of 1500+ is worth a lot more than a 3.8 at an elite private school where 80% of the students get A- and a "bad" grade is a B and the average SAT score is not nearly as high.
But surprisingly, college admissions officers will admit disproportionately more students from smaller private schools than from top public magnet schools, even if those students' SAT scores are lower.
I'm sure money has nothing to do with it. Not at all.
6
One reason to become rich is to give advantages to your kids.
Some minority parents are trying to do the same thing for the same reason.
3
"The problem, Hoxby and Avery explained, was that many high-achieving low-income students were making self-destructive decisions as high school seniors, applying to local community colleges or nearby public universities rather than the highly selective institutions where their academic records would likely win them admission — and where generous need-based financial aid policies like Harvard’s might enable them to earn their degree at a significant discount."
Self-destructive decisions? I suppose that those "economists" assume that anyone below a certain income threshold and skin color are completely void of their own agency? We must be shepherded in all life choices because someone of a lighter skin tone completely, and in utter totality, understands the nuance and context of our decision making? Many of us went to state schools and other private schools, yet we are successful in our careers. Did anyone ever consider that maybe, just maybe, that schools are chosen based upon PROGRAM, and not brand name?
While her family's income is considerably different than most Americans, nonetheless, Sasha Obama just started at the University of Michigan... did she self-sabotage by not following in the footsteps of her parents and sister into the Ivy Leagues? Just maybe, UoM has a program that is better suited for her career aspirations.
For lack of a better phrase, I cannot with this kind of ivory tower elitism (with a pinch of racism) at all.
4
Every year when I interview applicants for admission I am stunned and saddened by the poor quality of advice and guidance offered at so many schools. And I am well aware that at the local country day schools and the public schools in affluent communities, the students get extensive coaching and guidance from the schools and from their parents (both from parental experience and from paid coaches). Please don't diss underprivileged students for being "devoid of agency". Not being clued in doesn't mean one is clueless.
2
And so it goes. The rich grow ever richer while the rest of us must struggle merely to survive. These schools are a fundamental piece of that machinery. The so-called selective schools monopolize opportunity. The rich have more seats at these schools than they have ever had, due to legacy admissions, backdoors (illegal or merely unethical) for rich mostly white applicants, prep school sports like lacrosse, racial bias against Asian-Americans. Due also to the dynamic described here. With only a few exceptions, these schools very much do take into account whether or not you can pay the full price. Details aside, the subtitle says it all: "But their thirst for tuition revenue means that wealth trumps all."
2
Where are admission slots being eaten up? By Chinese students paying full fees, though their admissions documentation is suspect at best and their record of academic dishonesty far worse than it should be. Google "Inside the Bust of a Chinese Cheating Ring at UCLA" for the Los Angeles Magazine story from the spring about this. Why would universities want international Chinese students? Easy money, no hassle, no frat parties, no agitating for safe spaces, and they don't even get counted in campus diversity stats. This is at both the freshman and transfer levels. Transfers especially, from US junior colleges that would close but for overseas students.
As for the rest, the article slips on two fronts. First, to equate the GPA of a student from a lousy high school to that of a student at a strong high school is like taking the #1 tennis player of Trinity and putting her on the court against the #1 at Michigan or Florida and expecting equity. Second, the SAT tutoring that works is the free Khan Academy stuff with which the College Board partners, not $10,000 thrown at a Kaplan course. I learned this in 8 minutes of research, and so can every every college counselor....um, enrollment manager, high school guidance counselor, parent, and student.
10
The entire college and university system needs to be smashed and remade. And first, they need to be stripped of all of their names and status. Lose their colors, no arms with Latin mottoes, no tenure, no tuition. Why did my graduation look like a medieval procession in 2019? The future needs to be terribly different.
I am deeply sympathetic to and support the cause to increase diversity. But the judgement against SAT could be somewhat misplaced. I hope it was not intentionally ignored by the author. If higher income people generally live in better school district (almost a fact, especially if they are not so rich to attend private schools), the GPA of their kids will be on average much lower than kids of the same capability in poor neighborhood. The purpose of SAT or any standard test that aims to test for innate ability is to correct this issue of lack of comparability of GPAs across high schools. If the author writes the article in totally opposite direction, it would sound as reasonable.
4
This is so curious, the red herring that a high-performing child in lower-performing district wouldn't compete in a higher-performing district. I'd expect the exact opposite.
1
Wonderful article, fascinating research. Every kid I know who did outstanding on the SATs never ever prepped for it, it really isn't a difficult test for kids who are smart and have been highly educated. Two reasons kids get great test scores and less great grades, one--they go to highly competitive High Schools and are graded on a curve and the other is that they are often uninterested in the class, esp. boys in the first two years of High School. Most of the kids in wealthy districts who do expensive test prep are kids who are not doing well in school or on tests. The real admission booster is not SAT prep, it is sports. I never understood why parents invested so much money into sports for their kids, they always spoke about the sport "scholarships", but had they put that same money into a 529 account, college would have been paid for, I didn't know that the actual goal was always the admission preference for athletes.
5
Thank you, thank you, thank you Paul T. This was exactly how I thought the game was played, even though no one (parent, guidance counselor, recruiter) knew or would tell me. Capitalism once again conquers all. I knew they had to be doing rev/yield management just like airlines do to keep themselves in new buildings and eight levels of administrative overhead.
3
I used to work at an elite school in New England and the charge was to attract more diversity. Ok. That is doable. I could easily have had 10 - 20 kids who address that and who could academically compete. However, whenever I would posit the question of what the school would do for those children once they were admitted the perplexed gazes stared back silently. The fact is that there are many, many wonderful and deserving children who are not wealthy or who have other challenges who could probably get in but may not be able to afford the school financially, emotionally or developmentally. I see this as a crisis in this country "You're here, be grateful and fruitful.". The questions schools must ask themselves is how else do we support these students and maybe by extension their families. Until they ask, answer and drive forward with a sound plan, every once in a while we will see these articles and also see very little change and the damage to these children will continue.
4
This! Many of these lower-income talented students have to deal with other issues financially, or emotionally. It can be hard for a young adult with that background with a weak support system adjusting to college, worrying about their family, and fitting in with others. Most people just won't understand the struggles that they are facing. My first roommate ended up dropping out of college. He had so many other pressures that most people couldn't deal with. He tried to support his single mother, siblings, and himself while attending school and unfortunately couldn't handle the academic rigor given his stressful situation.
3
I would caution parents whose children are admitted to elite liberal colleges to think twice before ignoring their own state universities, which are almost always a better deal. This is especially true for middle class families. My child received what we thought was substantial merit money guaranteed for four years. But annual tuition increases have greatly reduced the merit award cushion. Further, colleges promise to provide financial aid if family incomes fall (as in parents being laid off) or emergencies arise. But they become less and less likely to do so as the student progresses through four years. I appealed a refusal for financial aid prior to the start of my child's senior year and offered documentation showing our net income had declined more than 50 percent. The financial aid officer said our hardship was not enough even though we are both in our mid-60s. When I followed up with a brief email, the aid officer didn't bother to respond. I realized then that the college had my child hostage. Where else could he go?
18
At the heart of all of this is the question of who deserves an elite - or at least expensive - education and why? And why is an elite education seen as the golden ticket, or increasingly the only ticket, to the good life? What are the structural disadvantages for different groups of people? Does social engineering remedy disadvantage or just create new problems? If you create a more diverse, educated, ruling class does that change the importance of elite education or remedy the narrow access to the good life?
As others have noted this piece, while well reported, seems to present a false dichotomy between the 1% and the <$40K family/1st gen college crowd. The majority of American families do not fall at either end.
An unfortunate question: Is college part of a family culture? Episcopalians - who founded Trinity - like many other religious denominations and groups are known for being highly educated. If someone is from a privileged and educated background, what about the expectations of that privilege? There is the expectation to be educated, to "give back" but also the expectation that you are in a position to do so. If your grandfather went to Trinity and everyone else in your family has a college degree you are no one's idea of a needy case. However, it can be difficult when you are the only one of your cousin's without a degree or are not in a position to "give back."
3
I am surprised that there's no mention at all of the huge amount of foreign, mainly Chinese, very wealthy students who are making up sometimes 50% of a Freshmen class with low TOEFL scores but lots of Balenciaga outfits and cash to pay tuition... What will be the consequences for American colleges in the future for such admission decisions? And all this tuition money to be spent mostly on real estate and forever upgraded classrooms and campus, not on full time faculty or decently paid staff. Where is education in all this?
30
And the rampant cheating that these students often bring to campus. I know many professors who have experienced this.
5
Perhaps they can also mention the huge amount of legacy students, mainly white, very wealthy students who are similarly unqualified for admission. Wonder why you didn't mention them, too.
3
Legacy admits for elite colleges range 12 to 14% of a class - and they often cover other 'diversity' bases as well.
1
If the goal is academic excellence in this country and equal opportunity for all students, we need to do three things: 1) Make public Pre-K available for free. 2) Don't use property taxes to fund schools. Rather fund all schools well regardless of what zip code. 3) And for Pre-K through 5th grade, split the students up between the older kids born in the first 6 months of their grade and the younger kids born in the second 6 months of their grade. This would in effect end the red=shirting that only well-off parents can afford to do. There is too much difference in ability between a child who is older than another child by 7 or more months. The younger child is usually frustrated or feels defeated and the older child gets a sense of superiority that has little to do with effort or ability and more to do with that older child being older.
3
The US spends more per capita [$16,268] on its schools than most international first world countries [OECD - $10,759] and still achieves abysmal results - so money is not the issue.
7
As someone who lives in a state with most k12 funding coming from the state general fund (property taxes are used primarily for school facilities), I can tell you it doesn’t seem to make a difference. Despite more money going to schools with high poverty levels, English language learners, rural districts, etc., we have one of the worst graduation rates in the country and great inequality in outcomes. Before I moved here, I too thought leveling the funding playing field would make a difference.
7
New York - both city and state - throw gobs of money at the educational establishment, achieving the highest expenditures per student in the country. Yet, a very low percentage can pass state exams or even graduate. As a NY taxpayer, it's more than upsetting. BUT nothing will happen until someone, some party kicks the legs out of the Teacher's Union 'stool' and for sure it won't be the Democrat party.
3
Having recently gone through this process for the second time, this article is spot on. As a middle class single mother, retired from public service years ago and disabled, paying for college presented some challenges. My oldest went to a State U, but not in the state we live in. He got a merit scholarship (25% of total bill) for each year. That left him with manageable student loan debt (less than $20k). My younger child is at a national private university, total bill this year ~$77k. She receives a major discount on tuition, over 50% which we can handle. I live in a very affluent area because I bought a very small house in a very good school district a long time ago. I'm poor compared to many who live in my town. There are people all over the economic scale here, but most are super high end middle class or downright rich. What irks me, and it's discussed in the article, is when these very wealthy kids get "merit/scholarship" money to go to schools their parents can clearly afford. Maybe they should throw away the program that was developed to lure this kids into specific universities and means test everyone. Because what this practice does is it makes me pay more of my savings for my kids education than my rich neighbor. That neighbor will always be ahead of the curve re: savings because of situations like these. People who make $200k a year should be able to pay full boat unlike me who makes $80k a year. This practice is killing the real middle class.
4
Most articles about fairness in college admissions, including this one, repeat the truism that SAT scores mirror income level because of "access to expensive test prep." This gets repeated so often that it's become accepted as indisputable fact, when it is simply not supported by reality. For one thing, there is plenty of free test prep available, and the relative number of families resorting to expensive tutors is tiny. Second, and most important, there is very little evidence that test prep helps significantly in increasing SAT scores.
42
The poorest families, and many of those in low income brackets, rural areas, and underserved communities, do not have access to broadband (and/or internet at all in some cases). Poor students and their families lack the technology and resources to approach — or even try to approach — the use of educational tools in the way that wealthy families have become accustomed. While free test prep may be available, the fact that it is there does not mean that it is accessible to all.
The difficulties of being poor and lower class in this country are myriad and overwhelming to those struggling with poverty. For the same reason that the college application process advantages the wealthy and disadvantages the poor (who has time for extracurriculars and internships when you are working and/or taking care of family?), the entire system of higher education places the burden on the individual student - financial, academic and personal. These burdens are disproportionately more heavy on those without wealth. Seen in context, the picture is bleak indeed.
Some admissions officers are taking strong steps to see poorer students within their own stories, as Pérez has done, and recognizing that the narratives of students' lives will be different depending on their backgrounds. I applaud their efforts.
8
I failed at starting a program in our local school district of 7,000 high school students in four high schools (70% Hispanic) to get certain students to counsel a few times a year from junior year on to help them gain confidence that they could attend a highly select college. The failure was at all levels, but particularly the administration who insisted that Mexican kids are not going to leave home and go far.
This was based on an assistant superintendent whose daughter came home from a state school in a sister state after her first year to attend a local college. He was convinced if he could not do it the Mexican families certainly could not either.
The district had one student in the past few years go to a military academy and one go to a highly select school out east. Indeed 70% of college freshman attend a state school if it is within 60 miles of their home. This is mostly for economic reasons.
The district did not have a college counselor, as such. Its guidance counselors were devoted to making sure each graduate was qualified to enter a state school, albeit generally the community college. There were no college banners nor brochures of colleges in the guidance office.
I gave up since I only attracted two students and neither showed any promise of graduating from high school with high grades and test scores. These kids had never heard of Kahn Academy nor had they heard that students around the country take courses and practice for the SAT and ACT.
7
This is a good article about the admissions process, but I never see my question answered: Where are the middle-income families supposed to send their gifted kids? We are 2 years out from our first child going to college. She has 4.7 GPA & 1500 on her PSAT. We've saved some in a 529, but we also save a LOT for our retirement, i.e. assets. I feel like she's going to be passed over because we make just enough that she won't get much FAFSA.
3
The answer is, she may need to go down a notch in selectivity to get a big chunk of money from her school. But you shouldn't rule out top schools at this point. Some of them have very generous Financial Aid because of their huge endowments.
6
Follow the money to a slightly lower tier school, either LAC or honors college at a state school. She will get lots of personal attention and do just fine. There are highly gifted kids at almost any school. Just from a statistical perspective, they can’t all be at a top 10 or even top 100 school. As an example, check out Stamps Scholars.
2
What the article doesn't explain is why there's a public interest in whether Trinity continues with the same model, or even continues as a school at all. Is there some intrinsic social benefit that we all receive because it's there? If the two notable alumni the article cites are any example, George Will and Tucker Carlson, then maybe we'd all be better off if Trinity ended up on the ash heap of history.
18
Advice: Have your child take BOTH SAT and ACT. They will likely do better on one than the other. Buy the prep book - no one needs the tutors, just take a few practice tests. Do not choose Early Decision. We see how weaker students get admitted, but geez, it's just a Bachelor's Degree. Kids with good records get exceptional merit or needs based aid from the second tier colleges, which are still in the USNWR top 100. Take the scholarships and save those bucks for grad school. Your high achieving student will be noticed by professors, given special opportunities and come out with all A's. Then when they graduate with their bachelor's they will be all set with glowing professor accolades, excellent transcripts and internships to open the most important doors ahead of them. BTW, Trinity in is one of the worst sections of Hartford, the south side, not on a hill over looking the city.
8
Thanks for the comprehensive and well-researched article. Critics of college admissions processes seem to believe that it would be possible to simply rank-order all applicants on an absolute scale of merit, making it possible to simply enroll the most meritorious 1000 students at the consensus #1 school, and the second most meritorious 1000 students at the consensus #2 school.
The reality, of course, is far more subjective.
Reasonable people may differ on the merit of a given applicant and a given college. The most selective school might want to have someone who can play the cello, even if none of the most meritorious 1000 play the cello. Each college is trying to enroll a class that can pay the bills to keep the lights on, while making the most of the educational opportunity.
There's two main take-aways for me:
1) If you happen to be an admissions professional, senior college administrator or on a college board of trustees, then be clear about both your values and your financial necessities, and then do your best. It's complicated, but progress can be made.
2) If you are a student or a parent of one, focus less on the name-brand of each college among the 5300 in the United States, and focus more about obtaining the best education you can at wherever you end up. College doesn't end at admissions; it only begins.
9
Wealth trumps all.....What a news flash(sarcasm)
1
Dear Parents of accepted children;
We have committed to you. You hold the cards now. Our models have estimated the offer that you will accept. That not the minimum we would take.
Negotiate. Don't leave money on the table.
We both have a legitimate need to pay our bills.
Your admissions officer
2
There is something to this. If circumstances change, especially, it's worth checking in with the financial aid office.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice Roberts
3
By my estimations, it is likely that 30-50% of the students attending college have no business being there; they are mediocre or completely uninspired students, they are not intellectually curious and/or lack the IQ required for higher level cognitive pursuits. Most of them go to college because: A) they are affluent B) it's the thing that everyone does C) they've been sold a bill of goods about how it's absolutely necessary to succeed in life. Some of them haven't even mastered high school level curricula and need remedial classes in college.
This is total baloney. College should be for intellectually gifted and highly motivated students. As the article discusses, these are not the ones with the highest SATs but the ones who have the hunger to better themselves and pursue a cognitively demanding career. Everyone else should attend trade school. End of story. Half of all superfluous colleges in the US will shut down. For those that survive, close their Crossfit gyms and luxury condo dorms and admit deserving students and cut your tuition charges by 75%. Fund public universities with tax money (sorry Bernie, no free college for all, only for those who deserve it.)
5
"wealth trumps all "
Hey, this is USA - of course money and wealth are the only things that matters, say whatever else you want, wrap it any way you want, cash is the king and the bottom line of anything you can think of.
2
We also know that such colleges don't want more over-represented and over-qualified minorities, like Asians and Jews. Whether or not this constitutes discrimination is up to the legal system to determine.
7
If you go to a highly selective competitive high school isn’t it likely that you will have have lower grades despite good SAT’s?
At the end of the day fancy colleges need money.
Where is it going to come from?
15
Illuminating and fascinating, depressing and inspiring.
4
This article has a statistical flaw: it assumes that GPA are equivalent at different high schools.
16
How can you possibly make the claim that the SAT is easily overcome by money, but grades are not?
If anything, the SAT is more fair because regardless of how much tutoring one receives, they must still go in alone and take the exam head on. High school grades, on the other hand, can be inflated by parents who edit papers for their children and students who just work really hard (teacher's pets), but aren't necessarily that bright or "clutch" when it counts (i.e. high pressured standardized exams).
Affluent young men probably don't care about high school grades because they are usually focused mostly on athletics and socializing (very important skills that will pay dividends in the future after college). However, when the time comes to take the SAT, they genuinely buckle down and apply themselves, showcasing their talent. The results are not surprising when you think about it - who's more likely to have "innate" intelligence, the son of a plumber or the son of a physician? Of course SAT scores would correlate with income across a massive population - it's the offspring of the economic winners vs the offspring of the economic losers.
7
Some valuable information, but the discussion of SATs is tendentious and not evidence based. The NYTimes routinely exaggerates the benefits of SAT coaching, and the validity of high school grades, which are all over the map depending on the quality of the school. With few exceptions (every measure has noise) people with higher SAT scores are smarter than people with lower scores. It's an IQ test, and a pretty good one. The NYTimes is also invested in the religious catechism that smarts are evenly distributed throughout society. After a few generations of meritocracy, they are not. Once again, there's noise in the system, but it doesn't follow that talent is random allocated, independent of educational level and social class. It's not. Finally, the notion that a tiny number of people from lower SES groups going to "good" colleges (and it is a tiny number, by definition) is going to transform society is pie in the sky. It won't.
13
The article is talking about kids with a combination of high SAT scores and low high school grades. Why should a university give preference to a high IQ kid who didn't excel in high school? Bad study habits don't magically disappear when a student enters college.
Albert Einstein is the most famous counter-example of your hypothesis. There are plenty of kids who are uninspired in high school and become great college students and successful later on. Ironically, many of those types of kids are from the bad schools and lower SES that are described as precisely the ones that Trinity (and other colleges) want to attract.
It's a myth that Einstein did poorly in high school; his overall average at Argovian Cantonal School was 5 out of 6. Nor can it be said that Einstein had poor study skills. He taught himself algebra and geometry at 12, calculus at 14, and read Kant's "Defense of Pure Reason" in his spare time at 13.
As they say, anecdotes and urban myths are not data, and the data show a very different picture than you do. Giving preference to high school students with high SATs and low GPAs does NOT, as you claim, preferentially help students from bad schools or low SES backgrounds. As the article states, the opposite is true: these students with low SAT scores and high GPAs are far more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds than students with high SATs and low GPAs. What's more, their low SAT does not predict academic disaster: students with high GPAs and low SATS have similar freshman year performance, 2nd year retention, and six-year graduation rates as students with high SATs and comparable high school GPAs.
Kids with the potential of Einstein are extremely rare, and, like Einstein, will have not just high test scores, but actual accomplishments to prove it. "I have low grades because I wasn't 'inspired' " is not the mark of a future Einstein. It's an arrogant excuse from someone who doesn't want to admit that he earned those low grades by blowing off his school work.
1
I wish they would drop the emphasis on sports as a criteria for all except Division I level athletes. Youth sports destroy family life and most applicants simply aren't very good - certainly not good enough to play on a competitive college team. A friend's child was a top rated tennis player at a suburban high school where tennis was popular and he got a tennis scholarship for partial tuition...to string tennis rackets. All the players were recruited out of Eastern Europe.
Top colleges and universities: do families a big favor and publicly announce playing on a sports team is not valued in any way.
7
Culturally I wish people could figure out how to stop fetishizing "elite" colleges. Sure...investment banks and hedge funds routinely recruit from their graduating class, but unless you are planning to pursue that avenue I see only three reasons to possibly pursue the elites.
1) You are very gifted AND don't have much money. Elite schools WITH large endowments (they don't all have large endowments BTW) can be quite generous and might even be less expensive than state schools for those in need.
2) Your heart is set on eventually getting into a humanities PHD program in the hopes of teaching humanities at the college level. Good luck with that one!
3) You want to be able to roll out of bed in the fall of your senior year and go to a recruitment fair where all the major investment banks and hedge funds are sitting there waiting to speed-date you.
Take a look at the CVs of many top lawyers in...say...Chicago and you will find that although many if not all attended top law schools, many did NOT attend "elite" colleges. Same goes for many other professions.
4
The story of Angel Perez, who did poorly on the SAT but was let into Skidmore anyway and then became a Skidmore admissions officer looking for more Mini-Mes just like himself to admit reminds me of Richard Armour's definition: "The Admissions Office is in charge of admitting the college's mistakes."
Often, these mistakes, not being able to get jobs in the outside world, wind up working for the Admissions Office.
It's all the Great Cycle of Life, college admissions-style.
4
Everything in America seems to be pitched as a gladiatorial battle for ever decreasing resources starting from early childhood onwards (for reference see every article on gifted programs through ending the test for schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Sci for the past six months). Who benefits from a system designed like this? Clearly not poor and middle class kids.
3
For at least the past 30 years, higher education has ceased to be an ivory tower, other-worldly, intellectually- but not materially-concerned institution, and is rather a business, just like Microsoft, or Amazon, or any other Fortune 500 corporation. It calculates the revenues it receives, looks for the sweet-spots that maximize profitability, and demands that every unit, from English or Philosophy to the Business School or Engineering, be a profit center. The econometric models Mr Tough describes here could apply equally to any corporation in the land.
Thus it is no surprise that schools look to affluent families for their customers. That’s were the money is. And while this article focuses on private colleges, the same situation exists, mutatis mutandis, in public universities. More public colleges are chasing non-resident students, especially affluent ones, because they pay higher tuition rates and their families can afford it.
In this election season, part of the discussion revolves around income inequality and policies that will remediate the obscene gap between the top 0.1% and those in the lowest quintile. Aside from the fact that those policies might have a salutary effect on our democratic society, it’s also clear that they may help rectify the educational inequities Mr Pérez and his colleagues are trying to overcome.
7
If the author had bothered to check the Common Data Set for Trinity, he would have seen that Trinity has become weaker by almost every measure. Angel talks about hiring the best and brightest, but he has decreased the overall academic caliber of the student body. In 2013, 64% of the incoming class was in the top 10% in high school, 88% were in the top 25%, and 100% were in the top 50. By comparison, in 2019, 46% were in the top 10%, 76% in the top 25%, and 5% were from the bottom 50%. That's a dramatically weaker profile. At this rate, Trinity will be the next Hampshire.
6
US News' algorithms for all its rankings are deeply flawed and reflect the biases and preferences of one man, Robert Morse, US News' chief data strategist and architect of their college/grad/professional school rankings since 1987. Many researchers have pointed out the flaws over many years, including the fallibility of the so-called "reputation survey". The US News rankings system wreak havoc on actual educational excellence, but they will continue while they seem to be the only thing keeping that company afloat. Other actual news organizations (which US News is no longer, btw) should do an in-depth expose of just how meaningless these surveys and rankings are in almost all cases.
11
The comment that wealthy students receive more aid than poor students is misleading. If Tuition is $53K and Trinity gives most of the paying students a $20K break - they are still paying $33K plus room and board ($48/year). Tuition is inflated and like medical care - very very few pay the showroom price. Why should they? I'm from NJ and these schools know that in state Rutgers will run me $28K per year. They need to come close to that so I can aspire to send my kids to the next notch up. Will people like me pay more? Sure I will - probably as much as $50K and that seems to be where they try to come in so more people like me will say yes.
14
Impressive reporting. Our oldest is a junior in high school and starting to think about colleges. Reading this article was instructive in three ways: (1) reminded us that the folks reading the application try to care...as much as they are allowed to, (2) increased our resolve to remove all emotion and sentiment from our family's decision making, and (3) increased our resolve to protect our child's physical and mental health during the process.
17
I'm not sure that full-pay students will be inspired to apply to Trinity based on this article.
After all the talk of holistic admissions, the students are commodities sorted by an algorithm dictated by a magazine.
7
I had the same thought. Not sure Mr. Perez did Trinity any favors by showing how the sausage gets made.
3
Very interesting read, especially as I go through the college admissions process for the third time. Been to many college admissions presentations and now have a visceral response whenever I hear about the "holistic" admissions process. Never have I heard a college admissions person say that they whittle down the list to a certain point, then outsource the process to a quant/algorithm firm to get down to a final list. It would be an interesting question to ask at a college presentation, but really don't need to hinder my child's application any further by asking questions that will make the presenter squirm.
15
This article highlights a problem, largely undiscussed, with various proposals for “free” or reduced cost publicly funded college for all. Simply funneling more money into the system (or changing the source of payment to the public) does nothing to address the cost side. In fact, much like the proliferation and ease of access to student loans has contributed to sky high tuition, one would expect that greater public funding might do the same, absent some cost control. And yet, is America ready for the government to step in and not just pay for college but also dictate how much colleges can charge?
10
I am one of those "low-income" students described in the article. I attended one of the top 5 colleges in the country, in a leafy, stunning, New England campus. My classmates drove hand me down Mercedes station wagons, vacationed in Aruba with their families and spend the summer in Europe. I ate Ramen noodles during Thanksgiving, worked as a desk clerk in the library through the year. My wealthy classmates spent their college years drinking and getting laid. I spent them learning econometrics (Data Science, in today's terms). Many of my classmates did well through inherited wealth and property, although most common professions are insurance salesmen, mid level management, etc. I attended Stanford University for a Master's degree, and became a C level officer in a Fortune 500 company. So there is hope for the poor but hard working students described in this story.
11
Congratulations to you, but there is one element of your story I find disingenuous. I am from the same background as you and also attended a top school. Your line “my wealthy classmates spent their college years drinking and getting laid.” There are always a few outliers, but the students at these places are extremely bright and work really hard. The ones I knew became doctors, lawyers, engineers or went on to get an MBA or perhaps a PHD in humanities. Shall we get rid of this “wealthy and lazy” stereotype? It is certainly not true at the very top colleges, these places demand too much.
57
I seriously doubt that if you truly went to a top 5 college (whether University or a 4 year bachelor granting institution) that most of your classmates are insurance salesman, mid-level management, etc. I went to an Ivy league undergrad 30+ years ago and a very large number of the graduates of that era became doctors (not GPs or FPs I might add), lawyers, investment bankers and CPAs. There were a smattering of tech types.
6
Indeed, I've seen comments suggesting, with no actual evidence, that wealthy Chinese students come to American colleges with no qualifications, wear designer brands, and drive sports cars all day. Every Chinese international student I attended college and grad school with was extremely bright, creative, and hard working as well. You can feel the resentment towards the wealthy seething out of such comments.
7
Wait, you mean that class power always finds a way to reproduce itself, especially around a service deemed, with some justice, the core of class-power-reproduction?
Who knew that really-existing capitalism was this...simple?
Why do we need competitive admissions at all? I mean what *pedagogical* reasons, and note you can track internally all you like. I'll wait.
Why do private universities have to cost as much as a space program? I mean, what *pedagogical* reasons, and note that tuition-free (or nearly so) institutions have existed in the past and exist right now in other countries. I'll wait.
1
I send my daughter to a private (non Ivy) university where we pay full tuition. The total is maybe $75,000 a year. My son starts college next year. He wants to go to a public university out of state, so maybe $60,000 a year all in. We have one more in high school.
My wife and I work ourselves to the bone to pay for this and we are hardly rich. We raised our kids in a small Manhattan apartment and have never even owned a car. We understand that by our paying full tuition other students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can be heavily subsidized and we're fine with that.
Yet articles like these tend to vilify those of us who are paying a multiple of what other families pay for the same education. I worked my way through the mediocre flagship public university in my home state because my parents were flat broke. Now I'm subsidizing students where my kids go to school. Where exactly is the crime?
74
Sparky - if you have 135K to pay for tuition (and I'm betting your youngest goes to private school with hefty tuition as well), then you are very high income.
There's no crime in it, except if you are thoughtless and insensitive about your income relative to that of others, and if you don;t understand that your income was a major factor in your kids' admittance to college.
19
Actually, it may not be the case that you are subsidizing students who pay less. The "cost to educate" per student at many private colleges is higher than the full amount charged for tuition and fees, even if everyone paid it. The balance of the budget is covered by endowment income, private gifts, and income from ancillary businesses like the bookstore. These factors can be significant, accounting for more than half of total revenue at some colleges where, in essence, "every student gets a scholarship."
3
I think you may be extracting the wrong message:
"I worked my way through the mediocre flagship public university"
versus
"Now I'm subsidizing students where my kids go to school."
I would have selected the first rather than the latter.
After reading this lengthy article it's not at all clear why I'm supposed to care about modestly improving diversity statistics at expensive private schools that admit only 500-600 kids a year. And a quarter of them "athletes" at that. The focus should be on state university systems, which are much more affordable, diverse, and do an excellent job of educating students. We need to restore proper tax payer support to our state schools and hold the cost down for our students.
82
A point alluded to but not fleshed out well is the discrepancy between GPA (similar between rich and poor) and SAT scores (widely different). This suggests high income buys the best high/prep schools, where academic achievement is stronger. There must be a mosaic of metrics other than a single test score that better represent academic success!
3
I generally agree with your point, but we also shouldn't assume that GPAs are comparable among schools. I suspect it's much harder to land a 3.7 at Stuyvesant than at a random Manhattan high school.
31
Yes as much as people vilify the SAT or other standard exams, it does also sort out grade inflation among high schools.
Some students have low high school scores because they did poor work and high SAT due to paying fr courses etc, but nobody talks about how many students there are in even the best high schools that have a high GPA not really earned it.
7
We have two incomes in our household that place us comfortably in the upper middle class. We have one in college now and a second child who will begin college next year. Both our children were active in sports and activities in high school, made excellent grades and scored in the top 2% nationally on either the ACT or SAT. They are also "mixed race". Despite all this, thanks to the ridiculous inflation in the price of higher education in this country, the "elite" schools profiled in this article hold little appeal. They are largely becoming stratified bastions for the wealthy for whom money is no object and the increasingly hard to find poor who might have what it takes to succeed there. We aren't willing to mortgage our future by paying the exorbitant sum they would demand for the privilege of attendance.
For us, the college admission game becomes a choice between the local state university (we passed) and finding the schools who have to compete a little for kids like mine with merit aid. We have become very well versed in identifying the best schools that offer such aid and exactly the stats it requires to obtain their best offers. As with my son, we have encouraged my daughter to apply to numerous such schools with the realization that the net price will be an important factor in the final decision. This is the concession they must make to graduate from college debt free.
21
My cousin was an excellent student. She didn't go to the most prestigious school she got into, but a very good school that offered her a big chunk of money. She loved it, graduated with honors and found a wonderful job in her field.
As you say, sometimes there are "concessions" that need to be made. But the truth is, you can get a wonderful education almost anywhere.
10
What about the grades of the low-performing wealthy students? Are their grades inflated to help keep the stats of college in the impressive zone? Does the manipulation of the student body stats stop after admissions, or is it maintained throughout these students’ time at the college. This ongoing maintenance would benefit both parties involved. Interviewing the teachers who accommodate these types of students would be interesting for the conversation.
2
Thank you and best of luck to Mr. Perez, you are making a wonderful contribution. When I was at Trinity I remember being told by my favorite French professor that earnest, engaged students like me were a rare treat for her. May Trinity become a richer better school because structural racism is finally being addressed.
2
This quote summed up one of the big problems: "They have empowered affluent students, allowing them to be more choosy about where they go and how much they pay to go there." It comes down to elite families who are greedy and do not want to share their wealth or their elite status (time, culture, etc) with poor students. This is the problem with our entire country; rich people do not want to share or cede even a small piece of the pie so that everyone might be able to prosper. Despite all the advances, our society still prizes wealth in all areas, and these are the results. I commend Angel Pérez for his efforts, but we all need to change what it is we value in our society.
4
@James - I don't understand - How exactly are the Rich taking from the Poor here? The schools want full tuition and won't admit more less privileged students - no matter what the "elite" families do. If you want to get upset about something, focus on our vanishing Middle Class, which is the cornerstone of our democracy. Missing from NYT education coverage is the effect of high tuition and nominal financial aid for truly Middle Class students whose families can't afford to pay private college $73K/YEAR tuition even if their kids get a $30K aid package. Kids from families who live on $100K/year can no longer afford to attend these elite colleges.
47
Nowhere did I write that the rich are taking from the poor. Please read my comment more carefully. I wrote about the rich not wanting to share their wealth. That's not the same.
I agree that the middle class is vanishing, but again that is because so much of the wealth is concentrated at the very top. Why did tuition get so high in the first place? Because 'elite' institutions kept raising their tuition prices to appear more selective - this has been written about by other researchers. It's the same with how people will buy a more expensive product because it must be good, otherwise it wouldn't be so expensive. This article also states that the actual prices are inflated, and even the rich do not pay the full nominal price.
Another thing to consider - because of inflation, maybe $100,000 a year isn't middle class anymore. Have we ever considered that our salaries are wages are stuck in the 1970s? Maybe anything below $100,000 is the new 'working class.' Something to think about.
3
What makes this school "elite", $70 K per year in cost? Does it do a better job of educating you than good old state U? Would George Will still be George Will if he went to Illinois State in Bloomington? Or did only Trinity College turn him into the George Will that we know and some people love? The questions are impossible to answer
As with the stock market, every University should come with a warning- past results are not a guarantee of future returns.
Graduating college with a minimal amount of debt gives a student a huge leg up in the world today. It is still possible I believe, you have to be a smart shopper.
1
Reading about Trinity reminds me a little bit of my undergrad college, College of the Holy Cross. I felt out of place culturally, due to the prevailing wealthy, white New England vibe.
I'm white and relatively privileged, but I'm from Appalachia and not as wealthy as the average student there -- my parents are middle class. I look back on my time there very fondly, mostly due to all the great courses I took while I was there. Those professors had a profound impact on my mind, and my life trajectory.
4
All institutions, whether for profit, or supposedly non-profit, must have a positive cash flow in order to survive and thrive. As fewer sons and daughters of alumni are admitted and become "legacy" students, expect alumni fund contributions to drop. What will make up the difference, other than the vast problem of student-loan debt that the public soon must rebel against? One wonders. We may need to study more humbly, how this problem is solved in other nations.
6
I think quite a few other nations only offer education to those who have the intelligence or the money.
There is no student aid to be found in most of the rest of the world.
if you are rich does not matter if you are smart or dumb, someone will take your money.
So it comes down to the middle class so to speak, in other countries if you have the grades pass the right tests you can get a government paid education.
But the rest have to seek a trade school or other employment through family business apprenticeship etc. Not like here where we support dubious courses of study like women's studies etc and students that have no business being in college through the student loan system.
There are also no student athletes per say in the rest of the world which changes the dynamic, all sports are pursued through private clubs outside of school time.
4
There is a solution of sorts. Add a summer semester to increase enrollment and cash intake then rotate semesters of work at a gainful level plus experience gained to accommodate the headcount. This would benefit students of lower income levels as well as higher income because of work experience and might generate some giving by hiring entities.
I suggested this years ago where I taught and was roundly criticized for wanting to "debase" the school's academic quality despite my finance only argument. It was really about wanting fewer bright young scholars from challenging less able tenured or tenure track profs.
3
"[T]he U.S. News algorithm rewards them for spending a lot of money: Higher faculty salaries and more spending on student services lead directly to better rankings." It seems that this facet of the US News & World Rankings algorithm is the root cause of the main challenge presented here: balancing the need to maintain fiscal solvency for higher ed institutions while increasing access and opportunity for students from every economic and racial background. Faculty salary is used as an indicator/signal of faculty quality and institutional commitment to academic excellence and student resource spending is used as an indicator of a positive student experience. These are important factors, but there are better and more robust/qualitative ways to capture these factors. Can we just all agree to stop relying on these rankings?!
3
About 50 years ago I went to a very small all girl Catholic high school. The nuns did the best they could but their own education seemed sub-par and I remember trying to explain some of the finer points of evolution to them. I was a reader and for the most part taught myself particularly the sciences. I got mediocre grades. I guess I just figured it didn't matter what the nuns thought of my abilities and went on and educated myself. As it turned out I got fairly spectacular SAT's no test prep involved. I still went to a state school which had it's own pros and cons. A college recruiter came to my school and told us all that girls had to get a combined SAT score of at least 100 points higher than a boy in order to get into UMass. Was I really such an anomaly? I can't believe that there are kids out there today learning what they are interested in beyond what they are taught in school. Should a high SAT score automatically be suspicious? I always felt that doing well on the SAT's saved me and got me into college.
8
I have long questioned the usage of the SAT and ACT as significant factors in college admissions and have been happy to see the trend to move away from these tests by many colleges. They are "coached" tests, driven by socio-economic factors that can obscure the true value, performane and worth of a student. The psychological damage they do to worthy students, irregardless of their financial ability to pay, who are not good test takers is terrible. The same can be said of U.S. News and World Report rankings, a set of statistics that undermine what post secondary education should be about. Kudos to Mr. Perez for taking on the accelerating challenges and contradictions inherent in the college admissions process and for working to promote higher goals against the backdrop of monetary demands. Its not an easy balancing act. And kudos to Skidmore, my own alma mater, a college that has always looked past the "numbers" to see the value behind each applicant and offering life changing opportunities such as Mr. Perez experienced.
I am not a fan of standardized tests, but it is overblown that there is a movement away from them. Nearly all national universities demand them and often advanced tests as well for the most elite schools.
A handful of highly select liberal arts colleges have made them optional, but if you are not planning to take the SAT or ACT, you are significantly limiting the colleges you can apply to.
2
Why is there never a discussion of the cost side of the equation? $50k+ per year for undergrad education is absurd. The higher education system in this country is a money-making machine designed to extract (as this article illustrates,) wealth from one segment of the population and give it to another segment. Often leaving the victims of this scam deeply in debt. The "free" tuition movement is just more of the same and provides zero incentive for the institutions to control costs. Perhaps allowing students to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy and a provision for lending institutions to claw back that loan from the institutions that received the funds would provide the right motivation.
18
Maybe students and parents need to quit demanding that colleges look like 5 star hotels. All those buildings, gyms, recreation centers, cost a lot of money. Do you need a climbing wall? A ski slope? Riding facilities? Honestly? You want this stuff you better pay for it.
1
"The problem, Hoxby and Avery explained, was that many high-achieving low-income students were making self-destructive decisions as high school seniors, applying to local community colleges or nearby public universities rather than the highly selective institutions . . ."
But is that really such a self-destructive decision? It actually sounds realistic and pragmatic on the part of these students, rather than applying to an "elite" college where they may be treated as window-dressing and also be under tremendous financial pressure.
92
Unclear how they are window dressing. My students are realistic, pragmatic - and on the low-mid scale economically. Very few pay sticker price; most get tons of aid, and many pay less going out-of-state to a selective school than they would staying in state or going to a community college. But that's because they have had the curtain lifted up by people like Angel Perez. They now know that they can - and will - be welcomed at elite institutions, if the leadership is there. The pragmatism for them is TO apply to these schools - get it - and use every bit of that college/university as they can to raise themselves, and their families, up.
1
I was also surprised to learn that applying to a nearby public university can be considered a self-destructive act. I was the child of two civil servants and a first-gen college kid from a little town. Third in my class, 30 ACT and a National Merit Semifinalist. I was AMAZED to have the opportunity to go away to a state school. Afterward I got into a law school that was probably top 30 back then and graduated in the top 3rd of my class.
I know that a lot of bright, not-so-wealthy kids would do well to apply to the kinds of schools discussed in the article and would thrive there as I did at my humble alma mater, but attending a state university is not an "act of self destruction".
6
So the upshot of all of this is:
Small private liberal arts schools with high list prices admit high numbers of wealthy mostly white unmotivated undeserving students to help pay the bills.
In reality they all want to admit more deserving poor students but increased diversity drive away their wealthy benefactors. As well, the entire admissions process becomes fodder for reactionary conservative talk radio and entertainment TV programming- feeding the fears of the working white majority that something is being taken away from them and given to minorities and other undeserving people.
In reality most of these private schools are really social clubs who admit whomever they want. They end up being funded by unmotivated students with a lot of money- it sounds like the greater public comes out well here for avoiding them althogether, other than the tax free status given to them.
As other commenters have pointed out, ignored in all of this are public universities that do a very good job of educating people at a reasonable cost, and have much greater diversity already. Maybe that is where the focus should be.
30
Rutgers $37K a year. Hardly reasonable.
1
Just this week, a wealthy friend of mine said that my middle class bi-racial kids have a huge leg up in the college admissions race, whereas her horseback riding daughter is too “ordinary” and “typical” to get in to top colleges. Sigh.
I appreciate the honesty of this piece and the reporting on the brutal algorithm that whittles the admitted class down to the trustee- approved dollar amount.
But I am dismayed that all the attention goes to the wealthiest (635K+ according to Raj Chetty) or the Pell-eligible students (65K- according to Chetty) rather than the huge majority of students in between. It is those families who are expected to pay the discounted price of $30-50K per year and can’t, especially with multiple children.
Ability to pay reigns supreme even at heavily endowed colleges. The focus on the unfairness of legacy admission is reasonable, but even that has a limit. Ain't no way my "elite" alma mater is going to give my kids any sort of preference since they cannot pay anywhere close to full price.
61
Thanks for a great in depth article, that explores so many angles to what students and institutions face.
6
While the mechanics of how this plays out are interesting, what is the point of "indicting" private, non-profit colleges with the inevitable "elitism" of admitting wealthy students? The whole debate needs to be recentered on public institutions and their budgets. Who cares what private colleges do? Better to ask: why do so many students think they "must" attend a private college instead of a public institution? Have they all bought into a version of the Harvard-is-the-best mentality? I've heard elsewhere that only 3-4% of the country's undergraduates are enrolled in the top (50? 100?) private liberal arts colleges as ranked by US News and World Report. The wealthy will always have their private playgrounds, so why not focus on a more important problem? It is more interesting to ask why private colleges feel so compelled to change their image of being "elite" places: is that attitude driven now by changes in the USNews ranking methodology? The issue really is why "Harvard" is a meme for excellence instead of state flagships.
50
So you are willing to relegate this country's top private universities, many of which depend upon federal research funding to balance the books, to become "private playgrounds" of the wealthy? Many of the most qualified high school students come from the tax paying middle class. Republican dominated state legislatures starve top public institutions to finance tax cuts largely benefiting the rich. The result is increasingly making a top public school education out of reach for many non-poor students. Let the rest of us eat cake, indeed.
2
Who cares if the rich are relegated? It only matters if an Ivy League education is the difference between success and failure for any on individual.- if you are smart enough to get into those schools but can't afford it, you still can be a successful person by going somewhere else.
Let the rich waste their money on frivolous things, and for the majority of Americans an unaffordable private school education is frivolous
1
The elite private schools are the canary in the coal mine for state schools. As state schools lose more and more funding they will have to play the same revenue maximizing games as the private institutions do. Also lots of NYT readers went to private universities.
2
From this article, one would hardly know that America has a robust system of public higher education! I appreciate the focus on diversifying higher ed, but if--as the article says--"the colleges with high average SAT scores admit very few low-income students and very few black and Latino students," then wouldn't it help to examine some cases of public universities that often do provide a strong education for these students? After all, public universities are facing a revenue crisis, too, as state legislatures increasingly cut funding. Why such a myopic focus on the selective small liberal arts college, such a small subset of American higher education?
17
Sounds like a long painful process. I am so glad I went to a second tier state school in my home state. I'm almost ready to retire but in the real professional world the vast majority of workers went to state schools. If you learn how to use Pivot Tables, show up and try life will work out. It's much harder today but the working world, while meaner remains the same.
7