10 ms·

Text Your Way to College

90 points by tokenadult 10y ago

IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
For most people, going to elite schools is a waste of money. For example, a high achieving student from a lower middle class family who goes to Harvard still pays the equivalent of full tuition and fees at an average state school, while they can often get a full ride at a state school. Obviously there are a lot of ways an elite education can help you, but most people don't want to be a lawyer or go into business.
- wadetandy 10y ago
  While it wasn't explicit in the article, it seems the focus here was much more on poor and working class communities with high performers. Students from those places able to get into top tier institutions are unlikely to be paying much if anything for their tuition.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Elite schools aren't about the education but the network. Thats the actual value.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- gumby 10y ago
  I suggest reading Hillbilly Elegy (J.D. Vance) which offers a counterexample. It was cheaper for him to go to Yale law school than to Ohio State.
  - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
    Law is a different story altogether though. I was talking about undergrad.
    - nsp 10y ago
      It was cheaper for me to attend both Columbia and Vanderbilt (transferred from latter to former) as undergrad than it would have been to attend any state school. No merit scholarships, purely needbased financial aid based on family income of ~$70k, and total cost for 4 years was about $20k in federal student loans. I believe the situation for law school is substantially different but am not an export.
    - gumby 10y ago
      He notes this would have been true for his undergraduate education too, but he wouldn't have considered it for social/psychological reasons. He notes that his friends are stuck in the same bind, and it was a shock for him to even consider applying to Yale.
- scarmig 10y ago
  No. Someone from the lower middle class would have nearly all their room, board, and tuition taken care of, with maybe 10k in low interest federal loans. It's folks in the area around ~$100k who get hosed.
  - extra88 10y ago
    If your family makes $100k, they'll pay, at most, $10k/year. That's about the average for in-state tuition so hardly what I'd call getting hosed. Again, Harvard is not representative of all top private schools or event all Ivy League schools when it comes to cost of attendance.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Harvard is always worth it. There are innumerable advantaged with that paticular school. Having that name on a resume keeps it near the top of most any pile. The old boys (and girls) network radiating from that school is beyond statistics. Harvard opens doors.
- niftich 10y ago
  It's implied in the article that the opposite is true. Certain elite schools cover tuition, room and board, and occasionally supplies for low-income students through merit-based scholarships [1] even for out-of-state students, while many state schools can only afford to grant fewer full-rides, and usually only covering the in-state price -- with out-of-state being significantly more expensive. This doesn't mean that low-income students at elite schools still won't struggle with expenses [2] or fitting in [3]. But anecdotally, when I was a top-performing high school graduate from a well-ranked high school in the mid-2000s, this information was even harder to find, so I, and many of my peers opted for state schools instead, some with scholarships. But much of this information asymmetry still exists today. This is what this effort is trying to rectify. [1] https://www.collegeraptor.com/blog/affordable-colleges/these-10-expensive-colleges-have-free-tuition-or-full-ride-scholarships-for-middle-class-families/ https://www.collegeraptor.com/blog/affordable-colleges/these... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/for-the-poor-in-the-ivy-league-a-full-ride-isnt-always-what-they-imagined/2016/05/16/5f89972a-114d-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html?utm_term=.e25b8ef9f6b2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/for-the-poor-... [3] https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/09/what-like-poor-ivy-league-school/xPtql5uzDb6r9AUFER8R0O/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/09/what-like-po...
  - scott_s 10y ago
    You are not necessarily in disagreement with IslaDeEncanta, as they said "lower middle class", not "low-income". What exactly constitutes "middle class", and even "lower middle class" is not clear. But, I think, most would agree "low income" means not middle class, so you're probably talking about different sets of people.
    - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
      You're right. I wasn't really talking about people in poverty/near poverty. They can benefit from the network involved with an Ivy more than just about anyone, because they usually don't have a network at all.
      - 10y ago
- extra88 10y ago
  Harvard isn't a good example, they offer tremendous financial aid. If your household income is less than $65,000 (which could count as lower middle class), you pay nothing. By their figures 90% of households in America would pay less for Harvard than for a state school. [0] There are many private colleges with a higher "sticker price" than Harvard but with a much lower discount rate (i.e. what the average student pays is much closer to that sticker price). [0] https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost-attendance https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost...
  - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
    Harvard pays up to 90% of costs, which in my case was the full cost of the state school I got a scholarship to.
OJFord 10y ago
I realise in a sense this is not a particularly nice thought, but: > Colleges and universities need to join forces to encourage poor, high-achieving students to attend top-flight schools and nudge accepted students to enroll. Doing the right thing for students has never been so cheap. Do they? Competition is so high, however cheap it is, I can't see any upside for the university other than image. And that image is unlikely to do anything for their 'traditional' full-fee-paying applicant base.
- patja 10y ago
  I think the argument goes something like: the well-off will do well no matter what, but if only knowledge is standing in the way of helping the poor achieve their full potential, it is a goal worth pursuing for the benefit of society.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Good students from poor backgrounds have a better grasp of many social problems than people without experience of them, and are thus in a position to make a significantly greater economic contribution, to the benefit of all including the university. The university is an organ of society, not an end in itself. Have you seen any disembodied brains running things? No, the brain only exists within the whole body and the health of the body is tightly correlated with the health of the brain. The social body is a holographic reflection of the individual body.
- nether 10y ago
  A while back, the Economist said, "a dumb rich kid has a much better chance at attending an elite school than a brilliant poor kid." If a university is to maintain the goal of admitting smart students, then this would be a step toward that.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Sure, but that costs money. The goal of a university is to pay the bills. I am sure that any university would be willing to accept that brilliant poor kid, as long as someone was paying that 50k a year tuition price tag.
applecore 10y ago
What makes a top-ranked institution better than a "second-tier" school? The kind of applicant who would do well in the former will certainly do well in the latter.
- beojan 10y ago
  The top ranked institution ends up costing the student significantly less money, and the name also carries some weight.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I agree, but you would graduate with a better network, better branding, and possibly better skills from the top tier school, all of which have very real impact on the job market.
- patja 10y ago
  Even if they will do as well in either and achieve the same learning outcomes, having a top-ranked school on your resume has value as a signal. And the alumni network has value as well.
- extra88 10y ago
  The top-ranked institutions and "second-tier" schools charge about the same tuition but often have more generous financial aid so it can be cheaper to attend. Even if the sticker price would be the same for you, value of your degree is partially based on the reputation of the school so the top-ranked institution's degree is worth more.
- pgbovine 10y ago
  the 'crossover point' is different for everyone. e.g., would you rather be a 60th percentile student at a top-tier, or 90th percentile at a second-tier? (for some fuzzy, ill-defined definition of 'percentile') everyone needs to decide for themselves. as one oversimplified caricature, maybe it's still really hard to get an interview at your top-choice company even if you're 90th percentile at a second-tier school, but even the slackers who barely crawled to graduation at a top-tier school gets that same job interview.
akhilcacharya 10y ago
On one hand, I hear breathless reassurances from people like Frank Bruni (also at the Times) that "school doesn't matter" and "college is what you make it". At the same time, we get articles like these. Now, as someone pursuing CS at a second or maybe even third tier institution - which is it?
- throwaway729 10y ago
  I'll answer the over-arching theme of your question, and then your actual concrete questions. I'm a self-taught programmer (started freelancing/interning in high school). I then attended a second/third rate institution for undergrad and first rate institution for my phd. I have peer groups from all three of those educational experiences, so I have a unique perspective on this question. My perspective is that a CS degree maybe isn't worth it (and/or you should get the cheapest one possible) if you're content in a job with an average salary in a regional job market that isn't NYC/SV/Seattle. If you have higher ambitions (engineering leadership, a job at a competitive employer, much higher than average salary at stable company, research, consulting, uniquely intellectually stimulating work, etc.), things change. With respect to all of the above career goals, attending a first-rate university is tremendously helpful. First rate universities really do provide education, resources, and peer groups that are all substantially different in kind from the education you'll receive at a second/third rate institution. You'll be treated differently in the job market. That treatment will be rendered for unfair reasons, but will probably be fair treatment -- if you apply yourself even a little, you really will be better prepared to tackle tough problems. With respect to all of the above career goals, second/third rate universities really are exactly what you make of them. You should treat it as 3-4 years to develop a portfolio of interests, skills, and projects without having to explain why you spent your early twenties un/under-employed. Now, with respect to your actual questions: > that "school doesn't matter" School matters. Sorry, it does. You'll get access to recruiters, and they'll care a lot more about getting you in for an interview. Everything is a little bit easier. You still have to pull some weight, but getting in the door is so much easier. I tried it both ways. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it. Someone without a top university behind their name -- or any uni degree at all -- can do anything someone with those things can do. Especially in our field. But it will be tremendously more difficult. > and "college is what you make it". That said, college, and all school is always what you make of it. But there's a catch. Not all hard work is equal in value, and not all valuable hard work is noticed. Top schools will try to show you how to do valuable work. They will make sure 100% that valuable hard work is noticed. However, it's still on you to do the hard work part.
hrehhf 10y ago
Going to an Ivy League school does not help the student earn more money compared to going to a non-Ivy, except for students from certain disadvantaged backgrounds. "students, who were accepted into elite schools, but went to less selective institutions, earned salaries just as high as Ivy League grads." http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/03/01/the-ivy-league-earnings-myth http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2...
- blooooo 10y ago
  The exceptions are students who are black, Latino, low-income, or first-generation college attendees. I understand that these populations are a minority in the Ivy League, but they easily combine to be a majority of the country. So we could more accurately say that Ivies help students earn higher salaries, except for students from certain privileged backgrounds.
  - dxhdr 10y ago
    Minor tangent: how strongly does the minority component factor into this, versus the low-income and first-generation components? In other words, does this still apply to high-income, second-generation black and Latino college attendees? There is definitely quite a bit of overlap as minorities are more likely to be low-income, first-generation college students. When taking that into account it's not clear that those groups form a majority of the population.
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  There's also the argument that especially as a physician you have the obligation to your patients to do the best job you can. It's true for any profession but for physicians it's hard to see why anyone would object the reasoning. The difference between a top-25 school and anything else is like day and night, the students, the faculty, the equipment, the exposure to current research, and it's still true even though it may not be reflected in compensation.
  - dikdik 10y ago
blooooo 10y ago
I'm from a family in the bottom income bracket, and I went to Stanford. It's as alien and daunting as the article makes it sound. I would never have thought to apply if it weren't for a suggestion from my aunt who married rich. My high school guidance counselor was completely unhelpful, and she actively discouraged all of my peers who I wanted to apply with me (because "Stanford wants 1s and 2s," not people ranked 5th or 8th in the class). When I got in, I had to ask a relative to pay the $300 placeholder fee. My mother cried because she didn't believe that I could get full financial aid. It was easy to spot the two other low-income students in my 100-person freshman dorm. We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did. It took me years to learn. My sister was in the same position, but didn't have the blind ambition to ignore our hometown horror stories ("he was top of his class, but he went off to some fancy college and ended up flunking out..."). I convinced her to apply to several very prestigious schools. She was accepted, but went with a more modest, local one instead. She spent her freshman year interpreting every setback as a sign that she had overreached by going to a four-year university at all. It turned out fine, but she switched her plans from medical school to nursing by graduation. It's hard to communicate to people who grew up with even modest privilege how much all of this matters. My worlds before and after Stanford feel entirely separate. The Internet helped, but I was like an archaeologist combing through relics of a long-dead culture. What counts as an Ivy? How did these schools have so many AP classes? Why did all of these people have SAT tutors -- weren't tutors for people who were behind? Information matters. Culture matters. I was lucky, but a few well-placed text messages could absolutely replicate that luck. Even to just say, "We noticed you're a good student. You could go here. You could afford it. This is doable." Hearing that from any authority at all would be huge. Because when you're low-income or first-generation, everyone and everything in your life is constantly telling you the opposite.
- xor1 10y ago
  Just curious -- what did you study and what do you do now for work?
- mhneu 10y ago
  I had a similar experience from a working class, 2nd income quartile household, with little contact with big cities or big universities. SAT prep? Tutors? Private school? Scoring well on AP tests? These are unknown. But as you say what matters most is information and role models. Many people from outside the upper middle class didn't know about other opportunities. And when they did know, they didn't even think about the opportunities because they didn't know anyone like themselves doing those things. I was lucky to have parents that prioritized education, and a middle school teacher who took an interest in me and got me applying to some summer programs where I met kids who modeled a bunch of different possible paths. It's important to make kids aware of opportunities. Then it's important to make sure they have role models and encouragement.
bjacobel 10y ago
My girlfriend worked in college access with low-income students last year and used the same service used in the referenced UVA study [1] to advise and connect with students. SignalVine seems to have a big head start in this space, although both deployments I know about were in the Boston area - maybe there are other regional competitors (I wasn't able to find any through Googling, though). Naiively, the application looks to me like just a nice web frontend with auth and scheduling features, with an SMS provider for a backend (Twilio or similar). Seems like some enterprising hacker could break into this space with a cheaper product - SignalVine is pricey, especially for small nonprofits on tight budgets. [1]: https://www.signalvine.com/ https://www.signalvine.com/
shmerl 10y ago
Higher education should be free altogether.
echo419 10y ago
It's always interesting watching discussions of class come up on HN. As someone who comes from a working class background/family, it astounds me how often people will respond with the idea that the tech industry/any kind of(generally college) education is some kind of meritocracy, or that the solution is to simply 'work harder'. Those are certainly nice sentiments, but far from reality(See, the Myth of Meritocracy[0]), and I'm overjoyed to see that others in this thread are providing other narratives and social situations. [0]: http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm
- microcolonel 10y ago
  Don't know what you're talking about. Most of my colleagues got into the industry by going to open/free events and using materials which can be found freely on the internet. I came from a lower middle class family with a host of awful circumstances I won't go into. I learned most of what I needed to get a job through reading Wikipedia. A friend of mine and I did odd jobs for neighbourhood companies (and got screwed a lot) until he landed an entry level position at a web shop. A year later he was working at a different company and had them bring me in for an interview. The prerequisite for getting into my industry, at least until some asshole decides to regulate it, is any home computer manufactured in the last decade (you can get a core 2 duo machine, a monitor, and a keyboard for about 20 bucks today), and a desire to work. Today I can easily demand a six-figure salary and I've only been working full time for about two and a half years. Many people who are not as good as I am can get less after more working years. That is at least somewhat meritocratic.

90 points by tokenadult 10y ago

For most people, going to elite schools is a waste of money. For example, a high achieving student from a lower middle class family who goes to Harvard still pays the equivalent of full tuition and fees at an average state school, while they can often get a full ride at a state school. Obviously there are a lot of ways an elite education can help you, but most people don't want to be a lawyer or go into business.

wadetandy 10y ago
While it wasn't explicit in the article, it seems the focus here was much more on poor and working class communities with high performers. Students from those places able to get into top tier institutions are unlikely to be paying much if anything for their tuition.
ThomPete 10y ago
Elite schools aren't about the education but the network. Thats the actual value.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
gumby 10y ago
I suggest reading Hillbilly Elegy (J.D. Vance) which offers a counterexample. It was cheaper for him to go to Yale law school than to Ohio State.
- IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
  Law is a different story altogether though. I was talking about undergrad.
  - nsp 10y ago
    It was cheaper for me to attend both Columbia and Vanderbilt (transferred from latter to former) as undergrad than it would have been to attend any state school. No merit scholarships, purely needbased financial aid based on family income of ~$70k, and total cost for 4 years was about $20k in federal student loans. I believe the situation for law school is substantially different but am not an export.
  - gumby 10y ago
    He notes this would have been true for his undergraduate education too, but he wouldn't have considered it for social/psychological reasons. He notes that his friends are stuck in the same bind, and it was a shock for him to even consider applying to Yale.
scarmig 10y ago
No. Someone from the lower middle class would have nearly all their room, board, and tuition taken care of, with maybe 10k in low interest federal loans. It's folks in the area around ~$100k who get hosed.
- extra88 10y ago
  If your family makes $100k, they'll pay, at most, $10k/year. That's about the average for in-state tuition so hardly what I'd call getting hosed. Again, Harvard is not representative of all top private schools or event all Ivy League schools when it comes to cost of attendance.
sandworm101 10y ago
Harvard is always worth it. There are innumerable advantaged with that paticular school. Having that name on a resume keeps it near the top of most any pile. The old boys (and girls) network radiating from that school is beyond statistics. Harvard opens doors.
niftich 10y ago
It's implied in the article that the opposite is true. Certain elite schools cover tuition, room and board, and occasionally supplies for low-income students through merit-based scholarships [1] even for out-of-state students, while many state schools can only afford to grant fewer full-rides, and usually only covering the in-state price -- with out-of-state being significantly more expensive. This doesn't mean that low-income students at elite schools still won't struggle with expenses [2] or fitting in [3]. But anecdotally, when I was a top-performing high school graduate from a well-ranked high school in the mid-2000s, this information was even harder to find, so I, and many of my peers opted for state schools instead, some with scholarships. But much of this information asymmetry still exists today. This is what this effort is trying to rectify. [1] https://www.collegeraptor.com/blog/affordable-colleges/these-10-expensive-colleges-have-free-tuition-or-full-ride-scholarships-for-middle-class-families/ https://www.collegeraptor.com/blog/affordable-colleges/these... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/for-the-poor-in-the-ivy-league-a-full-ride-isnt-always-what-they-imagined/2016/05/16/5f89972a-114d-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html?utm_term=.e25b8ef9f6b2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/for-the-poor-... [3] https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/09/what-like-poor-ivy-league-school/xPtql5uzDb6r9AUFER8R0O/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/09/what-like-po...
- scott_s 10y ago
  You are not necessarily in disagreement with IslaDeEncanta, as they said "lower middle class", not "low-income". What exactly constitutes "middle class", and even "lower middle class" is not clear. But, I think, most would agree "low income" means not middle class, so you're probably talking about different sets of people.
  - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
    You're right. I wasn't really talking about people in poverty/near poverty. They can benefit from the network involved with an Ivy more than just about anyone, because they usually don't have a network at all.
    - 10y ago
extra88 10y ago
Harvard isn't a good example, they offer tremendous financial aid. If your household income is less than $65,000 (which could count as lower middle class), you pay nothing. By their figures 90% of households in America would pay less for Harvard than for a state school. [0] There are many private colleges with a higher "sticker price" than Harvard but with a much lower discount rate (i.e. what the average student pays is much closer to that sticker price). [0] https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost-attendance https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost...
- IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
  Harvard pays up to 90% of costs, which in my case was the full cost of the state school I got a scholarship to.

OJFord 10y ago

I realise in a sense this is not a particularly nice thought, but: > Colleges and universities need to join forces to encourage poor, high-achieving students to attend top-flight schools and nudge accepted students to enroll. Doing the right thing for students has never been so cheap. Do they? Competition is so high, however cheap it is, I can't see any upside for the university other than image. And that image is unlikely to do anything for their 'traditional' full-fee-paying applicant base.

patja 10y ago
I think the argument goes something like: the well-off will do well no matter what, but if only knowledge is standing in the way of helping the poor achieve their full potential, it is a goal worth pursuing for the benefit of society.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Good students from poor backgrounds have a better grasp of many social problems than people without experience of them, and are thus in a position to make a significantly greater economic contribution, to the benefit of all including the university. The university is an organ of society, not an end in itself. Have you seen any disembodied brains running things? No, the brain only exists within the whole body and the health of the body is tightly correlated with the health of the brain. The social body is a holographic reflection of the individual body.
nether 10y ago
A while back, the Economist said, "a dumb rich kid has a much better chance at attending an elite school than a brilliant poor kid." If a university is to maintain the goal of admitting smart students, then this would be a step toward that.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Sure, but that costs money. The goal of a university is to pay the bills. I am sure that any university would be willing to accept that brilliant poor kid, as long as someone was paying that 50k a year tuition price tag.

applecore 10y ago

What makes a top-ranked institution better than a "second-tier" school? The kind of applicant who would do well in the former will certainly do well in the latter.

beojan 10y ago
The top ranked institution ends up costing the student significantly less money, and the name also carries some weight.
mattnewton 10y ago
I agree, but you would graduate with a better network, better branding, and possibly better skills from the top tier school, all of which have very real impact on the job market.
patja 10y ago
Even if they will do as well in either and achieve the same learning outcomes, having a top-ranked school on your resume has value as a signal. And the alumni network has value as well.
extra88 10y ago
The top-ranked institutions and "second-tier" schools charge about the same tuition but often have more generous financial aid so it can be cheaper to attend. Even if the sticker price would be the same for you, value of your degree is partially based on the reputation of the school so the top-ranked institution's degree is worth more.
pgbovine 10y ago
the 'crossover point' is different for everyone. e.g., would you rather be a 60th percentile student at a top-tier, or 90th percentile at a second-tier? (for some fuzzy, ill-defined definition of 'percentile') everyone needs to decide for themselves. as one oversimplified caricature, maybe it's still really hard to get an interview at your top-choice company even if you're 90th percentile at a second-tier school, but even the slackers who barely crawled to graduation at a top-tier school gets that same job interview.

akhilcacharya 10y ago

On one hand, I hear breathless reassurances from people like Frank Bruni (also at the Times) that "school doesn't matter" and "college is what you make it". At the same time, we get articles like these. Now, as someone pursuing CS at a second or maybe even third tier institution - which is it?

throwaway729 10y ago
I'll answer the over-arching theme of your question, and then your actual concrete questions. I'm a self-taught programmer (started freelancing/interning in high school). I then attended a second/third rate institution for undergrad and first rate institution for my phd. I have peer groups from all three of those educational experiences, so I have a unique perspective on this question. My perspective is that a CS degree maybe isn't worth it (and/or you should get the cheapest one possible) if you're content in a job with an average salary in a regional job market that isn't NYC/SV/Seattle. If you have higher ambitions (engineering leadership, a job at a competitive employer, much higher than average salary at stable company, research, consulting, uniquely intellectually stimulating work, etc.), things change. With respect to all of the above career goals, attending a first-rate university is tremendously helpful. First rate universities really do provide education, resources, and peer groups that are all substantially different in kind from the education you'll receive at a second/third rate institution. You'll be treated differently in the job market. That treatment will be rendered for unfair reasons, but will probably be fair treatment -- if you apply yourself even a little, you really will be better prepared to tackle tough problems. With respect to all of the above career goals, second/third rate universities really are exactly what you make of them. You should treat it as 3-4 years to develop a portfolio of interests, skills, and projects without having to explain why you spent your early twenties un/under-employed. Now, with respect to your actual questions: > that "school doesn't matter" School matters. Sorry, it does. You'll get access to recruiters, and they'll care a lot more about getting you in for an interview. Everything is a little bit easier. You still have to pull some weight, but getting in the door is so much easier. I tried it both ways. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it. Someone without a top university behind their name -- or any uni degree at all -- can do anything someone with those things can do. Especially in our field. But it will be tremendously more difficult. > and "college is what you make it". That said, college, and all school is always what you make of it. But there's a catch. Not all hard work is equal in value, and not all valuable hard work is noticed. Top schools will try to show you how to do valuable work. They will make sure 100% that valuable hard work is noticed. However, it's still on you to do the hard work part.

hrehhf 10y ago

Going to an Ivy League school does not help the student earn more money compared to going to a non-Ivy, except for students from certain disadvantaged backgrounds. "students, who were accepted into elite schools, but went to less selective institutions, earned salaries just as high as Ivy League grads." http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/03/01/the-ivy-league-earnings-myth http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2...

blooooo 10y ago
The exceptions are students who are black, Latino, low-income, or first-generation college attendees. I understand that these populations are a minority in the Ivy League, but they easily combine to be a majority of the country. So we could more accurately say that Ivies help students earn higher salaries, except for students from certain privileged backgrounds.
- dxhdr 10y ago
  Minor tangent: how strongly does the minority component factor into this, versus the low-income and first-generation components? In other words, does this still apply to high-income, second-generation black and Latino college attendees? There is definitely quite a bit of overlap as minorities are more likely to be low-income, first-generation college students. When taking that into account it's not clear that those groups form a majority of the population.
HarryHirsch 10y ago
There's also the argument that especially as a physician you have the obligation to your patients to do the best job you can. It's true for any profession but for physicians it's hard to see why anyone would object the reasoning. The difference between a top-25 school and anything else is like day and night, the students, the faculty, the equipment, the exposure to current research, and it's still true even though it may not be reflected in compensation.
- dikdik 10y ago

blooooo 10y ago

I'm from a family in the bottom income bracket, and I went to Stanford. It's as alien and daunting as the article makes it sound. I would never have thought to apply if it weren't for a suggestion from my aunt who married rich. My high school guidance counselor was completely unhelpful, and she actively discouraged all of my peers who I wanted to apply with me (because "Stanford wants 1s and 2s," not people ranked 5th or 8th in the class). When I got in, I had to ask a relative to pay the $300 placeholder fee. My mother cried because she didn't believe that I could get full financial aid. It was easy to spot the two other low-income students in my 100-person freshman dorm. We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did. It took me years to learn. My sister was in the same position, but didn't have the blind ambition to ignore our hometown horror stories ("he was top of his class, but he went off to some fancy college and ended up flunking out..."). I convinced her to apply to several very prestigious schools. She was accepted, but went with a more modest, local one instead. She spent her freshman year interpreting every setback as a sign that she had overreached by going to a four-year university at all. It turned out fine, but she switched her plans from medical school to nursing by graduation. It's hard to communicate to people who grew up with even modest privilege how much all of this matters. My worlds before and after Stanford feel entirely separate. The Internet helped, but I was like an archaeologist combing through relics of a long-dead culture. What counts as an Ivy? How did these schools have so many AP classes? Why did all of these people have SAT tutors -- weren't tutors for people who were behind? Information matters. Culture matters. I was lucky, but a few well-placed text messages could absolutely replicate that luck. Even to just say, "We noticed you're a good student. You could go here. You could afford it. This is doable." Hearing that from any authority at all would be huge. Because when you're low-income or first-generation, everyone and everything in your life is constantly telling you the opposite.

xor1 10y ago
Just curious -- what did you study and what do you do now for work?
mhneu 10y ago
I had a similar experience from a working class, 2nd income quartile household, with little contact with big cities or big universities. SAT prep? Tutors? Private school? Scoring well on AP tests? These are unknown. But as you say what matters most is information and role models. Many people from outside the upper middle class didn't know about other opportunities. And when they did know, they didn't even think about the opportunities because they didn't know anyone like themselves doing those things. I was lucky to have parents that prioritized education, and a middle school teacher who took an interest in me and got me applying to some summer programs where I met kids who modeled a bunch of different possible paths. It's important to make kids aware of opportunities. Then it's important to make sure they have role models and encouragement.

bjacobel 10y ago

My girlfriend worked in college access with low-income students last year and used the same service used in the referenced UVA study [1] to advise and connect with students. SignalVine seems to have a big head start in this space, although both deployments I know about were in the Boston area - maybe there are other regional competitors (I wasn't able to find any through Googling, though). Naiively, the application looks to me like just a nice web frontend with auth and scheduling features, with an SMS provider for a backend (Twilio or similar). Seems like some enterprising hacker could break into this space with a cheaper product - SignalVine is pricey, especially for small nonprofits on tight budgets. [1]: https://www.signalvine.com/ https://www.signalvine.com/

shmerl 10y ago

Higher education should be free altogether.

echo419 10y ago

It's always interesting watching discussions of class come up on HN. As someone who comes from a working class background/family, it astounds me how often people will respond with the idea that the tech industry/any kind of(generally college) education is some kind of meritocracy, or that the solution is to simply 'work harder'. Those are certainly nice sentiments, but far from reality(See, the Myth of Meritocracy[0]), and I'm overjoyed to see that others in this thread are providing other narratives and social situations. [0]: http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

microcolonel 10y ago
Don't know what you're talking about. Most of my colleagues got into the industry by going to open/free events and using materials which can be found freely on the internet. I came from a lower middle class family with a host of awful circumstances I won't go into. I learned most of what I needed to get a job through reading Wikipedia. A friend of mine and I did odd jobs for neighbourhood companies (and got screwed a lot) until he landed an entry level position at a web shop. A year later he was working at a different company and had them bring me in for an interview. The prerequisite for getting into my industry, at least until some asshole decides to regulate it, is any home computer manufactured in the last decade (you can get a core 2 duo machine, a monitor, and a keyboard for about 20 bucks today), and a desire to work. Today I can easily demand a six-figure salary and I've only been working full time for about two and a half years. Many people who are not as good as I am can get less after more working years. That is at least somewhat meritocratic.