8 ms·

Kids of parents making $158.2-222.4k/yr have worst odds of Ivy League acceptance

55 points by Geekette 3y ago

amluto 3y ago
Moderators, the link is corrupt. It’s presumably meant to be: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-rates-ivy-league-schools-wealth.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-r...
gumby 3y ago
> I will tell you they have no fucking chance of getting in anywhere unless they have a legacy. What about schools that don't do legacies, like MIT?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Not Ivy League
tester756 3y ago
>Roughly a quarter of the admissions advantage stems from athlete recruitment: Other studies reveal that athletes tend to hail from high-income families. Years of access to private lessons, club sports, better facilities, and niche teams (water polo, golf, squash, fencing) make a bigger difference than most people realize. The final 31 percent of the very-rich advantage comes from colleges judging these children to be stronger in nonacademic categories. That makes sense since they have greater access to extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities On one hand using anything other than final, school leaving, standardized at country-level exams that are fair and transparent feels like wanting to introduce shitton of bias and lack of fairness and transparency but on the other hand pure academic capability/output isn't perfect proxy for success and it seems like fancy higher edu institutions want to 'create' successful people, right? ehh, while im standing behind #1 option, then #2 aint stupid ____________ >Marie currently attends a university that did not make the U.S. News & World Report list of top-50 public schools. Amanda tells me, “She’s happy but often says, ‘Mom, I just wish I hadn’t studied. I would have gotten into the exact same schools.’” And Marie is probably right. This is fucking sad, imo. She didnt teach her the purpose of eduction, of studying, what the hell. You don't study to get better grades, to get better scores, to get to better school. That's just a means to an end
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Studying is not education
- horns4lyfe 3y ago
  Then we need to stop rewarding people for going to those schools.
- recursivecaveat 3y ago
  > The final 31 percent of the very-rich advantage comes from colleges judging these children to be stronger in nonacademic categories. That makes sense since they have greater access to extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities This is very true imo. In my country medical school admissions are extremely competitive, and takes into account many of these factors, since there are many more ace students than slots. The results definitely favor wealthy students though, they're the ones with extra time for activities, or parents to fund groups for them to lead. Personally I think being a part-time burger flipper is better for your character than spending all your free time volunteering at a shelter to cynically maximize your resume.
nothercastle 3y ago
Not rich enough to get an economic advantage or poor enough to get Diversity priority.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
voicedYoda 3y ago
But i don't want my kids going to ivy League. I want them to study what they need to know, have fun, and explore. We aren't rich, and they know that, and that level of stuffy education would be better in graduate or post grad, when they pay you to study there.
- whateveracct 3y ago
  That was my conclusion as teen too. I went to in-state to a Big-10 school with one of the automatic merit scholarships based on ACT/SAT scores. Still got a great job out of college and moved out west to work at a FAANG (they recruited at my university). Pretty much a top outcome money wise I would've gotten at MIT (where I did get in).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - darkwizard42 3y ago
    This is classic survivorship bias. For every student that did make it out of those schools and did make it to FAANG, there are many many many more. A much higher % of university recruiting happens at MIT/Berkeley/CMU and as you mentioned, many of the in-state schools barely get recruited. It definitely makes things easier IF you get in and IF you use the resources of the school to their full potential. Lot of ifs, but let's not discount the objective value of those schools in making the next set of decisions easier just because they didn't benefit you.
    - onetimeusename 3y ago
      I think this is definitely the case for certain classes of jobs but I am skeptical about the value of those jobs. For example, I think that consulting firm McKinsey does some kind of recruitment and job interview on campus during spring and then they announce who they are hiring for the next summer internship in Autumn. A lot of people try to get in and then there is kind of a weird thing on campus where people talk about who made it in. (I never applied so idk all the specifics just observed this.) So is working at McKinsey or being a Google director or whatever, working at the other big consulting firms/Goldman Sachs really worth it? I don't know. It seems like they pay higher but I don't feel like there is a big value play for these firms. So really you just have people who play every trick in the book to make themselves appear impressive to get in to the school, then use that to get a job at McKinsey, then they do nothing useful there but at least they can say they were in a special club?? Is this really what's considered desirable? It just feels very artificial all the way down. On the other hand if you didn't go to an Ivy+ I think there isn't really a barrier to doing interesting and useful things which aren't involved in this weird status game. That's not to say all students at those schools are like that but the places where degree matters the most seem questionable to me. I don't like speaking in generalities either but I think it's worth questioning this economic system we have set up with admissions and the job availability after graduation.
gumby 3y ago
> She went on to explain that the couple didn’t make enough money to be considered potential donors When my kid went to college the development office started shmoozing before said kid had even chosen his classes.
- gertop 3y ago
  Is that an humble brag?
  - gumby 3y ago
    Not intended as so (and anyway I am not a likely donor). I was just surprised that they didn't waste a moment and got right down to it.
    - squokko 3y ago
      They’re no less transactional than a used car dealership, they just hide it better
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        I can only assume you mean the used car dealership hides it better.
horns4lyfe 3y ago
Ivy leagues have never been about finding the highest performers or potential; they’ve always been about giving rich kids the opportunity to network with other rich kids. The new twist is adding just enough diversity to make them feel better without being threatening. The sooner us normies stop playing their game and despise those institutions appropriately, the better off we’ll be.
- viburnum 3y ago
  The top schools see themselves as educating the next generation of the elite, whoever that is at the time.
- aluminum96 3y ago
  Ivy league schools need some high performers, in the sense that they mix admits for intelligence, wealth, diversity, athletic ability, and other factors. Clearly, many smart students attend Harvard. But so do donor kids. When you hire a Harvard grad, you can't tell which graduate you are hiring! That's a huge part of the value proposition for the wealthy. Harvard needs to admit enough truly smart students.
  - jeremiahbuckley 3y ago
    Interesting point. Couldn’t this be solved for by Linked In and Google now? Find the candidates’ parents and then you have your answer. ( Of course, your company may choose to hire a legacy candidate for some of the same political benefits the college accepted them. )
rayiner 3y ago
> Amanda’s daughter Marie attended private school, speaks Mandarin, had an unweighted GPA of 4.1, and earned a 1560 on the SAT… Marie currently attends a university that did not make the U.S. News & World Report list of top-50 public schools How is it possible not to get into a state flagship with a 1500+ SAT? If I was white or Asian with college aged kids I’d move to Texas or Georgia.
- jsyang00 3y ago
  possibly they did not apply
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  Texas and Georgia are states huge numbers of people would never consider moving too because of their horrific politics - a rather direct reflection of the average.
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      > Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet. The technical term for this is "race to the bottom," abetted by short-term thinking on the part of "customers." It's similar to how people complain bitterly about the quality of air travel, but then go for the lowest-possible air fare. (OK, the actual technical term is "revealed preference vs. expressed [or stated] preference.")
      - pyuser583 3y ago
        People leaving the Bay Area for Austin and Georgia is hardly a race to the bottom. The Bay Area has insane housing costs because of toxic zoning regulations. Austin is a firmly blue city with extensive public services. The parts Georgia Bay Area folks are moving to are similar politically and socially. A better description is “people who value a well run city leave their poorly run city and move to a well run city.” Corporations doing business in the country with the least environmental regulation is a race to the bottom. Big corporations opening campuses in lightly populated suburbs is a race to the bottom. Ships flying flages of convenience in third world countries is a race to the bottom. People leaving a poorly run place to a well run place is not a race to the bottom. When a person moves from the Dominican Republic to New York, that’s not a race to the bottom.
pyuser583 3y ago
It really doesn’t matter if you get into Ivy League. Even the student this article was perfectly happy with her college. America had so many hidden-gem colleges, this is really a stupid concern.
theknocker 3y ago
[dead]
kazinator 3y ago
Not rich enough to buy way in, not poor enough for poverty-related affirmative action, and competing with too many sames.
BuckYeah 3y ago
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, affirmative action was a red herring meant to distract from the real barrier to multigenerational economic-growth. It’s always been about money/class. Diversity matters, but would politicians have voted against the interests of their own progeny? I think not.
- appplication 3y ago
  Affirmative action also serves as a zero-sum wedge issue amongst the working class, which is great for reinforcing existing political lines and demographics.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  I'm not so cynical. Affirmative Action is generally a policy with good intentions behind it (addressing historical inequity) but is limited because institutions are not willing to take steps that address the full breadth of inequity. I do not believe that Affirmative Action was some sort of cover to get institutions out of the spotlight.
  - Our_Benefactors 3y ago
    This is a “no true Scotsman” argument; DEI didn’t work because we did it wrong, so we must keep increasing DEI.
mitchbob 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20240114212909/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-rates-ivy-league-schools-wealth.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240114212909/https://nymag.com...

55 points by Geekette 3y ago

Moderators, the link is corrupt. It’s presumably meant to be: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-rates-ivy-league-schools-wealth.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-r...

gumby 3y ago

> I will tell you they have no fucking chance of getting in anywhere unless they have a legacy. What about schools that don't do legacies, like MIT?

jncfhnb 3y ago
Not Ivy League

tester756 3y ago

>Roughly a quarter of the admissions advantage stems from athlete recruitment: Other studies reveal that athletes tend to hail from high-income families. Years of access to private lessons, club sports, better facilities, and niche teams (water polo, golf, squash, fencing) make a bigger difference than most people realize. The final 31 percent of the very-rich advantage comes from colleges judging these children to be stronger in nonacademic categories. That makes sense since they have greater access to extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities On one hand using anything other than final, school leaving, standardized at country-level exams that are fair and transparent feels like wanting to introduce shitton of bias and lack of fairness and transparency but on the other hand pure academic capability/output isn't perfect proxy for success and it seems like fancy higher edu institutions want to 'create' successful people, right? ehh, while im standing behind #1 option, then #2 aint stupid ____________ >Marie currently attends a university that did not make the U.S. News & World Report list of top-50 public schools. Amanda tells me, “She’s happy but often says, ‘Mom, I just wish I hadn’t studied. I would have gotten into the exact same schools.’” And Marie is probably right. This is fucking sad, imo. She didnt teach her the purpose of eduction, of studying, what the hell. You don't study to get better grades, to get better scores, to get to better school. That's just a means to an end

jncfhnb 3y ago
Studying is not education
horns4lyfe 3y ago
Then we need to stop rewarding people for going to those schools.
recursivecaveat 3y ago
> The final 31 percent of the very-rich advantage comes from colleges judging these children to be stronger in nonacademic categories. That makes sense since they have greater access to extracurricular activities and leadership opportunities This is very true imo. In my country medical school admissions are extremely competitive, and takes into account many of these factors, since there are many more ace students than slots. The results definitely favor wealthy students though, they're the ones with extra time for activities, or parents to fund groups for them to lead. Personally I think being a part-time burger flipper is better for your character than spending all your free time volunteering at a shelter to cynically maximize your resume.

nothercastle 3y ago

Not rich enough to get an economic advantage or poor enough to get Diversity priority.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

voicedYoda 3y ago

But i don't want my kids going to ivy League. I want them to study what they need to know, have fun, and explore. We aren't rich, and they know that, and that level of stuffy education would be better in graduate or post grad, when they pay you to study there.

whateveracct 3y ago
That was my conclusion as teen too. I went to in-state to a Big-10 school with one of the automatic merit scholarships based on ACT/SAT scores. Still got a great job out of college and moved out west to work at a FAANG (they recruited at my university). Pretty much a top outcome money wise I would've gotten at MIT (where I did get in).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- darkwizard42 3y ago
  This is classic survivorship bias. For every student that did make it out of those schools and did make it to FAANG, there are many many many more. A much higher % of university recruiting happens at MIT/Berkeley/CMU and as you mentioned, many of the in-state schools barely get recruited. It definitely makes things easier IF you get in and IF you use the resources of the school to their full potential. Lot of ifs, but let's not discount the objective value of those schools in making the next set of decisions easier just because they didn't benefit you.
  - onetimeusename 3y ago
    I think this is definitely the case for certain classes of jobs but I am skeptical about the value of those jobs. For example, I think that consulting firm McKinsey does some kind of recruitment and job interview on campus during spring and then they announce who they are hiring for the next summer internship in Autumn. A lot of people try to get in and then there is kind of a weird thing on campus where people talk about who made it in. (I never applied so idk all the specifics just observed this.) So is working at McKinsey or being a Google director or whatever, working at the other big consulting firms/Goldman Sachs really worth it? I don't know. It seems like they pay higher but I don't feel like there is a big value play for these firms. So really you just have people who play every trick in the book to make themselves appear impressive to get in to the school, then use that to get a job at McKinsey, then they do nothing useful there but at least they can say they were in a special club?? Is this really what's considered desirable? It just feels very artificial all the way down. On the other hand if you didn't go to an Ivy+ I think there isn't really a barrier to doing interesting and useful things which aren't involved in this weird status game. That's not to say all students at those schools are like that but the places where degree matters the most seem questionable to me. I don't like speaking in generalities either but I think it's worth questioning this economic system we have set up with admissions and the job availability after graduation.

gumby 3y ago

> She went on to explain that the couple didn’t make enough money to be considered potential donors When my kid went to college the development office started shmoozing before said kid had even chosen his classes.

gertop 3y ago
Is that an humble brag?
- gumby 3y ago
  Not intended as so (and anyway I am not a likely donor). I was just surprised that they didn't waste a moment and got right down to it.
  - squokko 3y ago
    They’re no less transactional than a used car dealership, they just hide it better
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      I can only assume you mean the used car dealership hides it better.

horns4lyfe 3y ago

Ivy leagues have never been about finding the highest performers or potential; they’ve always been about giving rich kids the opportunity to network with other rich kids. The new twist is adding just enough diversity to make them feel better without being threatening. The sooner us normies stop playing their game and despise those institutions appropriately, the better off we’ll be.

viburnum 3y ago
The top schools see themselves as educating the next generation of the elite, whoever that is at the time.
aluminum96 3y ago
Ivy league schools need some high performers, in the sense that they mix admits for intelligence, wealth, diversity, athletic ability, and other factors. Clearly, many smart students attend Harvard. But so do donor kids. When you hire a Harvard grad, you can't tell which graduate you are hiring! That's a huge part of the value proposition for the wealthy. Harvard needs to admit enough truly smart students.
- jeremiahbuckley 3y ago
  Interesting point. Couldn’t this be solved for by Linked In and Google now? Find the candidates’ parents and then you have your answer. ( Of course, your company may choose to hire a legacy candidate for some of the same political benefits the college accepted them. )

rayiner 3y ago

> Amanda’s daughter Marie attended private school, speaks Mandarin, had an unweighted GPA of 4.1, and earned a 1560 on the SAT… Marie currently attends a university that did not make the U.S. News & World Report list of top-50 public schools How is it possible not to get into a state flagship with a 1500+ SAT? If I was white or Asian with college aged kids I’d move to Texas or Georgia.

jsyang00 3y ago
possibly they did not apply
Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
Texas and Georgia are states huge numbers of people would never consider moving too because of their horrific politics - a rather direct reflection of the average.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet. The technical term for this is "race to the bottom," abetted by short-term thinking on the part of "customers." It's similar to how people complain bitterly about the quality of air travel, but then go for the lowest-possible air fare. (OK, the actual technical term is "revealed preference vs. expressed [or stated] preference.")
    - pyuser583 3y ago
      People leaving the Bay Area for Austin and Georgia is hardly a race to the bottom. The Bay Area has insane housing costs because of toxic zoning regulations. Austin is a firmly blue city with extensive public services. The parts Georgia Bay Area folks are moving to are similar politically and socially. A better description is “people who value a well run city leave their poorly run city and move to a well run city.” Corporations doing business in the country with the least environmental regulation is a race to the bottom. Big corporations opening campuses in lightly populated suburbs is a race to the bottom. Ships flying flages of convenience in third world countries is a race to the bottom. People leaving a poorly run place to a well run place is not a race to the bottom. When a person moves from the Dominican Republic to New York, that’s not a race to the bottom.

pyuser583 3y ago

It really doesn’t matter if you get into Ivy League. Even the student this article was perfectly happy with her college. America had so many hidden-gem colleges, this is really a stupid concern.

theknocker 3y ago

[dead]

kazinator 3y ago

Not rich enough to buy way in, not poor enough for poverty-related affirmative action, and competing with too many sames.

BuckYeah 3y ago

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, affirmative action was a red herring meant to distract from the real barrier to multigenerational economic-growth. It’s always been about money/class. Diversity matters, but would politicians have voted against the interests of their own progeny? I think not.

appplication 3y ago
Affirmative action also serves as a zero-sum wedge issue amongst the working class, which is great for reinforcing existing political lines and demographics.
UncleMeat 3y ago
I'm not so cynical. Affirmative Action is generally a policy with good intentions behind it (addressing historical inequity) but is limited because institutions are not willing to take steps that address the full breadth of inequity. I do not believe that Affirmative Action was some sort of cover to get institutions out of the spotlight.
- Our_Benefactors 3y ago
  This is a “no true Scotsman” argument; DEI didn’t work because we did it wrong, so we must keep increasing DEI.

mitchbob 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20240114212909/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/college-acceptance-rates-ivy-league-schools-wealth.html https://web.archive.org/web/20240114212909/https://nymag.com...