4 ms·

The best American colleges are still filled with students from rich families

15 points by known 11y ago

cronjobber 11y ago
"America’s elite is producing children who not only get ahead, but deserve to do so: they meet the standards of meritocracy better than their peers, and are thus worthy of the status they inherit." From: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21640316-children-rich-and-powerful-are-increasingly-well-suited-earning-wealth-and-power http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21640316-children-ric... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8933562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8933562
krakensden 11y ago
I have heard Harvard's student body composition strategy described as "wealth and high achievers", which makes a certain amount of sense if you're hoping to be a business catalyst that gets donations down the line. Slightly downscale, public flagships deeply rely on rich students paying full price to subsidize everyone else. If you wanted more poor kids to have a chance, you might have to pay higher taxes.
- peterhadlaw 11y ago
  Also, a big problem with public universities is that because they are so big and inefficient with money, and that they do not have enough money to begin with, to make up for it they accept foreigners who (with their parents factory money) are easily willing to pay DOUBLE the regular out of state tuition to have their children go to a good American school. On top of that, these children then fly back and don't continue to the country that established these schools in the first place - thus sapping our overall academic levels.
  - geebee 11y ago
    There's a lot to this, but a university like UC Berkeley does educate far, far more undergraduates than a very elite private like Stanford or Harvard, and enrolls more low income students than the entire ivy league combined, something you can say about several different UC campuses. Although UC gets support from the state, the massive endowments and favored tax status of the very elite privates may be more valuable than direct state support, with fewer strings attached. The UCs are inefficient with money, but think about how much places like Stanford and Harvard are able to spend on an undergraduate class size that might be a quarter to a fifth the size of a UC, with a lower percentage of low income students as well. If you consider scale an important factor, measuring a university by how many students it can educate in addition to how well they do after graduation… you know, I think the UCs may be a far more "efficient" model than the ivies.
luckydude 11y ago
I'm a well off parent with a kid about to head to college. I don't find these numbers surprising in the least. Here's why. My kid, while bright enough, has a lot of advantages: - good schools - parents who care and are involved in his education - tutoring - ADHD medication - We're seeing if we can get him more time for tests, he processes slowly but gets good results given enough time (I was similar) Contrast that with some poor kid, no ADHD drugs, no tutoring, parents are too busy trying to put food on the table, they are almost certainly in a crappy school district, the kid is probably working to help put food on the table. If my kid was poor there isn't a chance in hell that Harvard would look at him. It would take a super human to live as a poor kid and somehow be noticed by an elite university. Any poor kid who makes it into a place like that has my utmost respect.
- tamana 11y ago
  It is awful that activist parents can get their kids higher test scores by requesting accommodations. The tests are (inappropriatelty) designed to measure speed, but a minority of in-group families get that aspect of the test waived to give their kids an edge, instead of making the tests loosely timed for all students. Not to mention the performance enhancing drug aspect, behavior that is banned in sports but encouraged in academic games.
peterhadlaw 11y ago
I don't know where I heard this but if these elite schools are really that good, why haven't we commercialized them and made them even more accessible? ... Food for thought - I don't know what I think of that statement myself to be fair.
- moftz 11y ago
  Increasing admission means they need more professors. Assuming an elite university has the best professors around, any addition ones are going to be of lesser quality. Now the school is putting out worse students because their professors aren't as good as they used to be. Their quality of research drops because the students and professors suck and their reputation as an elite school goes away. Additionally, if you open the admissions more, you will effectively get students with lower grades. The more easy it is to get into a school, the less people think of it. You are catering to the lowest denominator.
  - tamana 11y ago
    An Ivy league education owes very little to professors. Professors are hired for research skills, not undergraduate teaching. Teaching is famously poor, except in the small minority of research assistantship cases.

15 points by known 11y ago

"America’s elite is producing children who not only get ahead, but deserve to do so: they meet the standards of meritocracy better than their peers, and are thus worthy of the status they inherit." From: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21640316-children-rich-and-powerful-are-increasingly-well-suited-earning-wealth-and-power http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21640316-children-ric... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8933562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8933562

krakensden 11y ago

I have heard Harvard's student body composition strategy described as "wealth and high achievers", which makes a certain amount of sense if you're hoping to be a business catalyst that gets donations down the line. Slightly downscale, public flagships deeply rely on rich students paying full price to subsidize everyone else. If you wanted more poor kids to have a chance, you might have to pay higher taxes.

peterhadlaw 11y ago
Also, a big problem with public universities is that because they are so big and inefficient with money, and that they do not have enough money to begin with, to make up for it they accept foreigners who (with their parents factory money) are easily willing to pay DOUBLE the regular out of state tuition to have their children go to a good American school. On top of that, these children then fly back and don't continue to the country that established these schools in the first place - thus sapping our overall academic levels.
- geebee 11y ago
  There's a lot to this, but a university like UC Berkeley does educate far, far more undergraduates than a very elite private like Stanford or Harvard, and enrolls more low income students than the entire ivy league combined, something you can say about several different UC campuses. Although UC gets support from the state, the massive endowments and favored tax status of the very elite privates may be more valuable than direct state support, with fewer strings attached. The UCs are inefficient with money, but think about how much places like Stanford and Harvard are able to spend on an undergraduate class size that might be a quarter to a fifth the size of a UC, with a lower percentage of low income students as well. If you consider scale an important factor, measuring a university by how many students it can educate in addition to how well they do after graduation… you know, I think the UCs may be a far more "efficient" model than the ivies.

luckydude 11y ago

I'm a well off parent with a kid about to head to college. I don't find these numbers surprising in the least. Here's why. My kid, while bright enough, has a lot of advantages: - good schools - parents who care and are involved in his education - tutoring - ADHD medication - We're seeing if we can get him more time for tests, he processes slowly but gets good results given enough time (I was similar) Contrast that with some poor kid, no ADHD drugs, no tutoring, parents are too busy trying to put food on the table, they are almost certainly in a crappy school district, the kid is probably working to help put food on the table. If my kid was poor there isn't a chance in hell that Harvard would look at him. It would take a super human to live as a poor kid and somehow be noticed by an elite university. Any poor kid who makes it into a place like that has my utmost respect.

tamana 11y ago
It is awful that activist parents can get their kids higher test scores by requesting accommodations. The tests are (inappropriatelty) designed to measure speed, but a minority of in-group families get that aspect of the test waived to give their kids an edge, instead of making the tests loosely timed for all students. Not to mention the performance enhancing drug aspect, behavior that is banned in sports but encouraged in academic games.

peterhadlaw 11y ago

I don't know where I heard this but if these elite schools are really that good, why haven't we commercialized them and made them even more accessible? ... Food for thought - I don't know what I think of that statement myself to be fair.

moftz 11y ago
Increasing admission means they need more professors. Assuming an elite university has the best professors around, any addition ones are going to be of lesser quality. Now the school is putting out worse students because their professors aren't as good as they used to be. Their quality of research drops because the students and professors suck and their reputation as an elite school goes away. Additionally, if you open the admissions more, you will effectively get students with lower grades. The more easy it is to get into a school, the less people think of it. You are catering to the lowest denominator.
- tamana 11y ago
  An Ivy league education owes very little to professors. Professors are hired for research skills, not undergraduate teaching. Teaching is famously poor, except in the small minority of research assistantship cases.