4 ms·

The ultimate goal is to get more students to apply to these top schools - especially lower-income students. In a vacuum, this is commendable; certainly our top

by huac 11y ago

The ultimate goal is to get more students to apply to these top schools - especially lower-income students. In a vacuum, this is commendable; certainly our top schools should do a better job of educating students regardless of tuition. But while this initiative will likely raise application rates, will it increase acceptance, matriculation, and graduation rates for lower-income students? Most 'metrics' applicants are measured by correlate highly with income. There are SAT prep classes, schools with more AP/IB classes, personal statement 'helpers', interview coaches, and so on. This initiative needs to be coupled with a better understanding of the challenges that lower-income students face. There is, of course, no mention of financial aid packages by the coalition. Increasing the amount earmarked to financial aid, particularly to grants instead of loans, would be more effective.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
The program includes online coaching through SAT prep etc. That is part of the website, and integral to the success of the effort. There are already programs for low-income and 1st-generation college applicants. I don't see how its provably more effective to continue plugging that hole, vs this new initiative to bridge students from high school to ivy-league. They saw a gap, and they addressed it. Its so easy to snipe at Ivy League schools, no matter what they do. Thus my other comment on this subject.
existencebox 11y ago
Let me pose a "risky" question. Those classes and signs of affluence. Are they JUST signs of affluence, or are they also signaling mechanisms for academic fitness? Having gone to an city public school with students across the financial spectrum (all the way from projects through upper class suburban) there was certainly a correlation between income and these classes, but there was also (logically) a correlation between the students who took those courses/had those good SAT scores and students who had the right tools/experience to succeed academically/not be one of the many first-year college dropouts I also unfortunately saw. What I worry is that we're addressing the problem too high up the pipeline. I'm not sure how many of the highschoolers I saw who had no access to mentoring/training figures, or extra help through parents/extracurriculars, would have been ABLE to succeed in college off the bat. The metrics, although correlated with money, _do provide utility_ to the things colleges want to look for in a purely academic context. A poor student can be intuitively brilliant on some subject, but entirely lacking the sort of background, academic and work habits, and other tools someone with earlier exposure would have built up by college. (again, this is a broad generalization, there are certainly outliers, and while one could make a well-taken effort to capture them, I'm just musing on the underlying problem) In summary: - I want to see more of those less fortunate get opportunities in higher education - I'm not sure dropping them into the system after years of having been less fortunate will have the level of success that is often aspired to. - I'd like to see more focus on opportunities earlier on in upbringing; but here's the biggest catch 22: I'm not sure we'll EVER fix things like SAT prep courses. Even if we offered free prep, SO MUCH of taking advantage of it relies on having the right mentors/guides to push you to take advantage of that, build the right mindset, and that's harder to give broadly pro-bonum than some free prep courses. (The other problem in a similar vein is, and perhaps I'm just not creative enough, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with measures of academic fitness that _couldn't_ be gamed with more time/money. At the end of the day, time and opportunities DO lead to more academic fitness, so to me it becomes a question less of digging for diamonds, and more of trying to give more people time and opportunities early on.) That's the real conundrum though as it seems: If we want to make a level of schooling that doesn't just become "another highschool", it will necessarily select the "best and brightest". And for any system of judging that, having more money/resources(time) will likely allow someone to improve their odds. I'd be curious as to if anyone sees ways around this; or to go back to my "risky question" statement, if there IS a safe way around this.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  This program is designed to address those issues. It begins in the 9th grade. It coaches young students in the work habits, behaviors and classes needed to excel.
  - existencebox 11y ago
    Perhaps I missed something in the article, but the most heavily emphasized point was the "locker"; they mention you could get assistance on filling it from a mentor, but my read was that this was "your hypothetical personal mentor" which many might not have access to. The site could very well be far more robust, but the article painted it more just as a new/more accessible/guided way of putting together a resume. (And as a sister post well poses, I do also think the 9th grade is too late; developmental research typically suggests an extensive and early-starting formative period with different critical windows for different skill sets.)
  - agentgt 11y ago
    Not to fall into "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics"[1] but I agree with posters point that the issues may need to be addressed earlier. Like how do you build really good schools with high expectations for low income areas in my mind is a much bigger bang for your buck. I'm not an expert in education but I think its a fair question... can the Ivy Leagues help with that issue (particularly with endowments near or more than $30 Billion)? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855
  - bernardom 11y ago
    I read his point as: the 9th grade is too late.
convexfunction 11y ago
>There is, of course, no mention of financial aid packages by the coalition. Top schools tend to give full rides to sufficiently poor students. (I probably would've bothered to apply to them if I'd known that before I started at my state university...)
- huac 11y ago
  Very few give aid packages without loans though (at least circa a few years ago).
  - agentgt 11y ago
    From my understanding there are hidden programs that are done by the alumni. I have in-law distant family member that had is entire MIT tuition paid by a mysterious alumni he never met nor talked to and it was not a loan or aid package. I have also heard others from Harvard getting similar results.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Anecdotally, my wife helped a deserving Eagle Scout in our Troop get into an Ivy League college on aid. His mother will pay $900 per semester, that's her total cost. No loans. So programs do exist.
JumpCrisscross 11y ago
> Increasing the amount earmarked to financial aid, particularly to grants instead of loans, would be more effective Agree. In addition, reducing or eliminating legacy preferences [1] would go a long way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  Why on Earth would you expect them to do that? Do the elite worry about legacy admissions? They do not. Do the elite worry about their old-boys clubs being exposed and the public turning against them? No duh.
- zeveb 11y ago
  Of course, the legacy preferences are part of the value proposition of such schools. You don't go to Harvard for an education; you go to Harvard for a Rolodex. Having been drinking buddies at Harvard with a guy whose father went to Harvard gives you an entree into society.
patja 11y ago
"The ultimate goal is to get more students to apply to these top schools" You could just stop there. The ivy league schools already get way way more applicants of every type and flavor than they can ever admit. Some suggest that they just want more applicants regardless of who those applicants are, because these schools are competing to see who can be the most selective. Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. compete for the "honor" of bragging rights to who is most selective. They have a strong incentive to increase their denominator.
tgb 11y ago
FYI, SAT prep courses correlate with being a minority, surprisingly and barely, if at all, with higher income. Chech out: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the...
- RodericDay 11y ago
  It's not surprising. The whole point of the discussion about "media representation" of minorities is about role models, and about how it's easier to put effort towards a goal if you see yourself there.
  - tgb 11y ago
    Apparently it's surprising to huac, and it was surprising to me and to the reporters quoted in the article that assumed the reverse. Maybe not to you, but it's definitely surprising to many. I don't understand the relevance of your second sentence. Do you believe that minorities see themselves as doing well at SATs and hence taking prep courses disproportionately?

by huac 11y ago

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

The program includes online coaching through SAT prep etc. That is part of the website, and integral to the success of the effort. There are already programs for low-income and 1st-generation college applicants. I don't see how its provably more effective to continue plugging that hole, vs this new initiative to bridge students from high school to ivy-league. They saw a gap, and they addressed it. Its so easy to snipe at Ivy League schools, no matter what they do. Thus my other comment on this subject.

existencebox 11y ago

Let me pose a "risky" question. Those classes and signs of affluence. Are they JUST signs of affluence, or are they also signaling mechanisms for academic fitness? Having gone to an city public school with students across the financial spectrum (all the way from projects through upper class suburban) there was certainly a correlation between income and these classes, but there was also (logically) a correlation between the students who took those courses/had those good SAT scores and students who had the right tools/experience to succeed academically/not be one of the many first-year college dropouts I also unfortunately saw. What I worry is that we're addressing the problem too high up the pipeline. I'm not sure how many of the highschoolers I saw who had no access to mentoring/training figures, or extra help through parents/extracurriculars, would have been ABLE to succeed in college off the bat. The metrics, although correlated with money, _do provide utility_ to the things colleges want to look for in a purely academic context. A poor student can be intuitively brilliant on some subject, but entirely lacking the sort of background, academic and work habits, and other tools someone with earlier exposure would have built up by college. (again, this is a broad generalization, there are certainly outliers, and while one could make a well-taken effort to capture them, I'm just musing on the underlying problem) In summary: - I want to see more of those less fortunate get opportunities in higher education - I'm not sure dropping them into the system after years of having been less fortunate will have the level of success that is often aspired to. - I'd like to see more focus on opportunities earlier on in upbringing; but here's the biggest catch 22: I'm not sure we'll EVER fix things like SAT prep courses. Even if we offered free prep, SO MUCH of taking advantage of it relies on having the right mentors/guides to push you to take advantage of that, build the right mindset, and that's harder to give broadly pro-bonum than some free prep courses. (The other problem in a similar vein is, and perhaps I'm just not creative enough, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with measures of academic fitness that _couldn't_ be gamed with more time/money. At the end of the day, time and opportunities DO lead to more academic fitness, so to me it becomes a question less of digging for diamonds, and more of trying to give more people time and opportunities early on.) That's the real conundrum though as it seems: If we want to make a level of schooling that doesn't just become "another highschool", it will necessarily select the "best and brightest". And for any system of judging that, having more money/resources(time) will likely allow someone to improve their odds. I'd be curious as to if anyone sees ways around this; or to go back to my "risky question" statement, if there IS a safe way around this.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
This program is designed to address those issues. It begins in the 9th grade. It coaches young students in the work habits, behaviors and classes needed to excel.
- existencebox 11y ago
  Perhaps I missed something in the article, but the most heavily emphasized point was the "locker"; they mention you could get assistance on filling it from a mentor, but my read was that this was "your hypothetical personal mentor" which many might not have access to. The site could very well be far more robust, but the article painted it more just as a new/more accessible/guided way of putting together a resume. (And as a sister post well poses, I do also think the 9th grade is too late; developmental research typically suggests an extensive and early-starting formative period with different critical windows for different skill sets.)
- agentgt 11y ago
  Not to fall into "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics"[1] but I agree with posters point that the issues may need to be addressed earlier. Like how do you build really good schools with high expectations for low income areas in my mind is a much bigger bang for your buck. I'm not an expert in education but I think its a fair question... can the Ivy Leagues help with that issue (particularly with endowments near or more than $30 Billion)? [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855
- bernardom 11y ago
  I read his point as: the 9th grade is too late.

convexfunction 11y ago

>There is, of course, no mention of financial aid packages by the coalition. Top schools tend to give full rides to sufficiently poor students. (I probably would've bothered to apply to them if I'd known that before I started at my state university...)

huac 11y ago
Very few give aid packages without loans though (at least circa a few years ago).
- agentgt 11y ago
  From my understanding there are hidden programs that are done by the alumni. I have in-law distant family member that had is entire MIT tuition paid by a mysterious alumni he never met nor talked to and it was not a loan or aid package. I have also heard others from Harvard getting similar results.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Anecdotally, my wife helped a deserving Eagle Scout in our Troop get into an Ivy League college on aid. His mother will pay $900 per semester, that's her total cost. No loans. So programs do exist.

JumpCrisscross 11y ago

> Increasing the amount earmarked to financial aid, particularly to grants instead of loans, would be more effective Agree. In addition, reducing or eliminating legacy preferences [1] would go a long way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences

fluidcruft 11y ago
Why on Earth would you expect them to do that? Do the elite worry about legacy admissions? They do not. Do the elite worry about their old-boys clubs being exposed and the public turning against them? No duh.
zeveb 11y ago
Of course, the legacy preferences are part of the value proposition of such schools. You don't go to Harvard for an education; you go to Harvard for a Rolodex. Having been drinking buddies at Harvard with a guy whose father went to Harvard gives you an entree into society.

patja 11y ago

"The ultimate goal is to get more students to apply to these top schools" You could just stop there. The ivy league schools already get way way more applicants of every type and flavor than they can ever admit. Some suggest that they just want more applicants regardless of who those applicants are, because these schools are competing to see who can be the most selective. Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. compete for the "honor" of bragging rights to who is most selective. They have a strong incentive to increase their denominator.

tgb 11y ago

FYI, SAT prep courses correlate with being a minority, surprisingly and barely, if at all, with higher income. Chech out: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the...

RodericDay 11y ago
It's not surprising. The whole point of the discussion about "media representation" of minorities is about role models, and about how it's easier to put effort towards a goal if you see yourself there.
- tgb 11y ago
  Apparently it's surprising to huac, and it was surprising to me and to the reporters quoted in the article that assumed the reverse. Maybe not to you, but it's definitely surprising to many. I don't understand the relevance of your second sentence. Do you believe that minorities see themselves as doing well at SATs and hence taking prep courses disproportionately?