4 ms·

> The competition for seats at top schools in China is notoriously cutthroat. In some cities, the wealthy and well connected pay large sums of money, sometimes

> The competition for seats at top schools in China is notoriously cutthroat. In some cities, the wealthy and well connected pay large sums of money, sometimes described as “donations,” to secure placements in top programs. So... exactly like the US then? This is how every top tier university operates. Ability to pay is something considered before acceptance for ALL students; and children of major donors are guaranteed entrance. It's not any different at earlier levels of education in the US either - it's pay to play.

adventured 8y ago
No, not exactly like the US. Rather, it's similar for some schools. The US, fortunately, has a vast number of extraordinary universities. At MIT for example, tied for the third best US university [1], they rank #137 on the median family income level among universities. That places them behind such schools as the University of Dallas, Virginia Tech and the University of Charleston. Columbia is tied for the third best ranked US university. It ranks #89 on median family income. Those students are largely not elite rich families buying their way in. The University of Chicago is also tied for third best US university. They rank #138 on median family income. Behind the university of Scranton, UNC Chapel Hill, and Xavier. Cornell is ranked as the #16 US university, and comes in #87 in median family income. California Institute of Technology is ranked #12. They're #105 on the median family income metric. UCLA is ranked #19 in US universities, and ranks #353 on median family income among universities. UC Berkely is tied for being the 22nd best university in the US. It ranks #214 on median family income, behind Babson, Mountain Saint Mary's, Vermont, and Willamette. Carnegie Mellon is the #25 US university. They're ranked #81 for median family income. Emory is the #21 US university, and ranks #120 on median family income. The University of Florida is ranked #36 in US universities, and comes in #322 in median family income. You can go there for $6,000 per year in-state. There are two dozen other top 50 schools I can add to this list, that rank far below what you'd expect on median family income. [1] https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...
- ashelmire 8y ago
  This article (and I) wasn’t talking about median income. At any of the schools you just named, a significant donation means your child is attending. How do you think they afford to give scholarships to so many students?
  - adventured 8y ago
    The article and the quote you reference, says that competition for placement is "notoriously cutthroat" and the rich often buy their way in because placement is so limited. That isn't the case in the US among most of the top 25 or top 50 schools. You can buy your way in to some of those schools, for most of them you do not have to. That's the fundamental difference. The top 50 US schools overwhelmingly consist of middle class and middle-upper class students.
    - ashelmire 8y ago
      Ok, you don’t have to buy your way in. But being ranked 300 in median family income out of 3000 universities isn’t exactly encouraging. Even at the schools you mentioned, most students still come from the top 20%, save UCLA and Florida, with 48%.
      - adventured 8y ago
        It means to hit the median family income at those universities you have to come from the top edge of the middle class at least, that is true. That's not very surprising given we're talking about the median at very highly ranked schools. It's moving the goal posts quite a bit given the difference vs the elite rich having to buy their way in due to scarcity. If you want to dramatically improve your odds of family success in the US, you want to roughly be in the top half of the middle class bracket or above. At least based on school access. A lot of the top 50 universities do as well or better at accepting bottom 20% income bracket students, as second tier schools do. For reference, share of students coming from the bottom 20% income bracket (ie poor): UCLA 8.3%; UC Berkely 7.3%; MIT 6.2%; NYU 6.1%; Florida 6%; Chicago 5.5%; Columbia 5.1%; Rice 4.9%; USC 4.9%; Harvard 4.5%; Boston U 4.2%; Brown 4.1%; Stanford 4%; Carnegie Mellon 4%; Duke 3.9%; Tulane 3.9%; Northwestern 3.7%; Michigan 3.6% Lower ranked schools (but still top ~15%): Rutgers 6.8%; Illinois 6.1%; Texas 6%; UMass 5.8%; Florida St 5.3%; Michigan St 5%; Oklahoma 5%; Ohio St 5%; Oregon 4.7%; Georgia Tech 4.6%; Oklahoma St 4.4%; Oregon St 4.3%; NC State 4.3%; Texas Tech 4.1%; Washington St 4%; Arkanas 4%; Texas A&M 4%; Alabama 4%; Pitt 3.7%; Minnesota 3.5%; Kansas 3.2%; Kansas St 3.2%; Iowa St 3.2%; Illinois St 3%; Auburn 2.6%; Virginia Tech 2.3% As a percentage, Chicago takes as many poor students as Oregon St; MIT takes more than NC State; Harvard takes as many as George Tech; Stanford takes more than Kansas St. And so on. The schools that rank badly on high median family income and low access for poor students are who you'd expect: Princeton, Yale, Vanderbilt, etc. Notre Dame is a particular standout for being terrible, with a median income at $191,000 and only taking 1.6% from the bottom 20% income bracket.

adventured 8y ago

No, not exactly like the US. Rather, it's similar for some schools. The US, fortunately, has a vast number of extraordinary universities. At MIT for example, tied for the third best US university [1], they rank #137 on the median family income level among universities. That places them behind such schools as the University of Dallas, Virginia Tech and the University of Charleston. Columbia is tied for the third best ranked US university. It ranks #89 on median family income. Those students are largely not elite rich families buying their way in. The University of Chicago is also tied for third best US university. They rank #138 on median family income. Behind the university of Scranton, UNC Chapel Hill, and Xavier. Cornell is ranked as the #16 US university, and comes in #87 in median family income. California Institute of Technology is ranked #12. They're #105 on the median family income metric. UCLA is ranked #19 in US universities, and ranks #353 on median family income among universities. UC Berkely is tied for being the 22nd best university in the US. It ranks #214 on median family income, behind Babson, Mountain Saint Mary's, Vermont, and Willamette. Carnegie Mellon is the #25 US university. They're ranked #81 for median family income. Emory is the #21 US university, and ranks #120 on median family income. The University of Florida is ranked #36 in US universities, and comes in #322 in median family income. You can go there for $6,000 per year in-state. There are two dozen other top 50 schools I can add to this list, that rank far below what you'd expect on median family income. [1] https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...

ashelmire 8y ago
This article (and I) wasn’t talking about median income. At any of the schools you just named, a significant donation means your child is attending. How do you think they afford to give scholarships to so many students?
- adventured 8y ago
  The article and the quote you reference, says that competition for placement is "notoriously cutthroat" and the rich often buy their way in because placement is so limited. That isn't the case in the US among most of the top 25 or top 50 schools. You can buy your way in to some of those schools, for most of them you do not have to. That's the fundamental difference. The top 50 US schools overwhelmingly consist of middle class and middle-upper class students.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    Ok, you don’t have to buy your way in. But being ranked 300 in median family income out of 3000 universities isn’t exactly encouraging. Even at the schools you mentioned, most students still come from the top 20%, save UCLA and Florida, with 48%.
    - adventured 8y ago
      It means to hit the median family income at those universities you have to come from the top edge of the middle class at least, that is true. That's not very surprising given we're talking about the median at very highly ranked schools. It's moving the goal posts quite a bit given the difference vs the elite rich having to buy their way in due to scarcity. If you want to dramatically improve your odds of family success in the US, you want to roughly be in the top half of the middle class bracket or above. At least based on school access. A lot of the top 50 universities do as well or better at accepting bottom 20% income bracket students, as second tier schools do. For reference, share of students coming from the bottom 20% income bracket (ie poor): UCLA 8.3%; UC Berkely 7.3%; MIT 6.2%; NYU 6.1%; Florida 6%; Chicago 5.5%; Columbia 5.1%; Rice 4.9%; USC 4.9%; Harvard 4.5%; Boston U 4.2%; Brown 4.1%; Stanford 4%; Carnegie Mellon 4%; Duke 3.9%; Tulane 3.9%; Northwestern 3.7%; Michigan 3.6% Lower ranked schools (but still top ~15%): Rutgers 6.8%; Illinois 6.1%; Texas 6%; UMass 5.8%; Florida St 5.3%; Michigan St 5%; Oklahoma 5%; Ohio St 5%; Oregon 4.7%; Georgia Tech 4.6%; Oklahoma St 4.4%; Oregon St 4.3%; NC State 4.3%; Texas Tech 4.1%; Washington St 4%; Arkanas 4%; Texas A&M 4%; Alabama 4%; Pitt 3.7%; Minnesota 3.5%; Kansas 3.2%; Kansas St 3.2%; Iowa St 3.2%; Illinois St 3%; Auburn 2.6%; Virginia Tech 2.3% As a percentage, Chicago takes as many poor students as Oregon St; MIT takes more than NC State; Harvard takes as many as George Tech; Stanford takes more than Kansas St. And so on. The schools that rank badly on high median family income and low access for poor students are who you'd expect: Princeton, Yale, Vanderbilt, etc. Notre Dame is a particular standout for being terrible, with a median income at $191,000 and only taking 1.6% from the bottom 20% income bracket.