4 ms·

The Ivy Leauge admits roughly 20,000 students every year [1]. Lets say they give one fifth of those get free admission. That is a total of 4000 kids which is pr

by acadien 12y ago

The Ivy Leauge admits roughly 20,000 students every year [1]. Lets say they give one fifth of those get free admission. That is a total of 4000 kids which is practically nothing! Roughly 5 million people are admitted to University every year in the US[2]! So maybe 0.08% of all University students get a free ride at an ivy league. Really this makes no difference except for padding the Ivy League's statistics, its of little to no help for most 'talented low income' highschool students. [1]http://theivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/ http://theivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/ [2]http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 Edit: To address most of the responses below. I'm implying that even if all appropriate students applied for these programs, as the article suggests, it wouldn't make a difference because some tiny fraction of them would be admitted. There are very few opportunities for low income students unless they are willing to take on the burden of debt. Some lottery that gives a tiny fraction of them free tuition is not a solution, it is offensive to suggest they have opportunities they simply do not have. Fix the broken system, correct tuition costs!

nicholasdrake 12y ago
would say the poor students who don't get free admission are credit constrained? can't they just get a loan?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jhundal 12y ago
  It's hard to know what the outcome of your education is going to be, so the risk of not being able to pay off a loan may just be too great. I am not aware of any elite colleges publishing statistics on things like the job placement rate and post-graduation income of lower income students. (On that note, if anyone knows where to get these numbers I would love to take a look.)
  - nicholasdrake 12y ago
    i don't have the numbers but it's very interesting u say that because one of my best friends and i are actually going to apply to this summer yc batch with our idea of 'human capital' where we pay for poor, but very bright students to go to university and in return they give us a small % of their lifetime income. to be honest the reason we are excited about htis idea is actually more from the investor stand-point (would love ur feedback if u're interested http://nicholasdrake.svbtle.com/human-capital-investing-in-the-future http://nicholasdrake.svbtle.com/human-capital-investing-in-t...). but we also thikn it has lots of nice properties from the student side in particular, debt is constant regardless of your situation, whereas as we're 'taking equity' in the students if you can't find a job or only a low paying job you pay much less. of course, to make it balance it out if you are super successful you have to pay more, but we think for poor and thus likely risk averse students this is a great way to finance an education. would be really great to have your feedback if you have time.
    - lmartel 12y ago
      I can't comment on the numbers because I'm not familiar with the economics of those countries, but I have a few thoughts: 1) "Human capital" sounds really icky. Think of a new buzzword. 2) "Lifetime income" again gives off a bit of an indentured servitude vibe. I haven't done market research (although going by that writeup, neither have you), but I suspect people would be much more amenable to a larger percentage (10-25%) with an expiration date (say 10 years).
      - nicholasdrake 12y ago
        thanks for the feedback. yeah there is a definitley a danger that human capital just gets interpreted as slavery... i studied econ at uni where human capital is kinda the positive buzz word, like invest in educating your workforce etc. etc. u may very well be right that a higher percentage of income for a shorter period of time makes sense (or if it is lifetime income allow some buyout clause) - the big advantage of the lifetime aspect is you can basically trade future long-term consumption when you're income is higher to get higher consumption now when you're income is lower... it also allows a transfer from people who make lots of money to those who make less (when you apply to university you don't know which group you will be in)... your feedback is really helpful, if you have time please take a look at our yc app https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487, if it seems that we haven't done our research/holes in our thinking we defintley want to know now!! thanks so much!
sukilot 12y ago
You can't blame the ivies because other schools charge too much.
jordonwii 12y ago
Picking arbitrary fractions of the total number of students admitted misses the point. My understanding is that it comes down to school policy: those who are offered admission and accept, but have financial need (demonstrated via the FAFSA, or the equivalent for private universities, if not) are given financial aid proportional to their need. While applying to colleges, I noticed that this is the policy at many universities. As a result, the ones who get financial aid for tuition are the ones who really need it. Looking at the absolute number of students receiving aid isn't important.
- acadien 12y ago
  I wasn't clear and I think you missed my point, please see my edit.
- randomnumber53 12y ago
  Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too, debunking the common complaint that they don't admit low-income students because they'd rather admit students who can pay. It is also important to note that these types of policies are more common the more elite a university is.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Of course elite universities don't make admissions decisions based on income. They make admissions decisions based on things like "child of an alumnus", "high SAT scores", or "good grades at a private prep school", none of which are known to correlate with income /s
    - aianus 12y ago
      Intelligence is one of the most genetically inheritable traits. Combined with environmental factors it's no wonder SAT scores and grades would correlate highly with parental income.
      - hey-there 12y ago
swimfar 12y ago
Are you implying that there are people who get accepted to those programs but don't get free tuition because of limits to those scholarships? Or are you talking about the talented high school students who aren't quite "good" enough to get accepted to one of these schools? If it's the latter then it's not really fair to only include the number of students who get free tuition from the top 5 or so schools. There are many other good private and public schools which provide partial or full scholarships for good students. Some examples include Texas A&M, Duke, and Dartmouth[1]. Also, any high schooler in Georgia who graduates with at least a 3.0 GPA gets 4 years worth of tuition to an in-state university (including Georgia Tech) as long as they hold that GPA through college[2]. The University of Alabama has something similar as well. There are other optiosn which base the tuition scholarships on ACT scores [3]. Here are 26 schools with achievement-based and 15 schools with need-based scholarships [4] (There's starting to be some overlap in my lists) These don't all include the total cost (housing and food), but there are other grants and scholarships that could help with that. I'm sure part of the problem is making kids aware of these opportunities. I can see how, if they don't have good guidance counselors, they may just assume nothing like them exists. It would be interesting to see some statistics on how many students take advantage of these opportunities. (And just to be clear, I'm not implying that we can't improve the situation, only that people often underestimate the amount of help that is available) [1] http://affordableschools.net/20-tuition-free-colleges/ http://affordableschools.net/20-tuition-free-colleges/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship [3] http://panthersfutures.weebly.com/colleges-with-free-tuition-based-on-act.html http://panthersfutures.weebly.com/colleges-with-free-tuition... [4] http://www.advantageedu.com/blog/2008/100-free-college-rides-you-dont-need-daddy-to-pay-for/ http://www.advantageedu.com/blog/2008/100-free-college-rides...
- acadien 12y ago
  Please check my edit above. Thanks for the extra information. It would have been nice if the article author brought up some statistics that could show whether programs like these are under used.
randomnumber53 12y ago
Okay, but you could use that logic to claim (possibly validly, though I don't think so) that nobody should care about the Ivies because they only make up a fraction of schools (.08% times 5 = .4% of admissions, according to your data). This is not a sound argument, though, since very few of the 5 million students admitted to universities in the US would be competitive applicants at the Ivies. The pool of competitive applicants is much, much smaller. "To address most of the responses below. I'm implying that even if all appropriate students applied for these programs, as the article suggests, it wouldn't make a difference because some tiny fraction of them would be admitted." The article doesn't suggest that every student should apply, just that many academically qualified students are missing an opportunity to apply (even if that opportunity only results in a ~10% chance of acceptance, that's still a missed opportunity). EDIT: Formatting.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >Okay, but you could use that logic to claim (possibly validly, though I don't think so) that nobody should care about the Ivies because they only make up a fraction of schools (.08% times 5 = .4% of admissions, according to your data). This is not a sound argument, though, since very few of the 5 million students admitted to universities in the US would be competitive applicants at the Ivies. The pool of competitive applicants is much, much smaller. Well, we mostly shouldn't care about the Ivies. We want to solve the problems of the masses, not of some Chosen Elect (even if the Choice is based on academic qualification, weighted by personal background).

by acadien 12y ago

nicholasdrake 12y ago

would say the poor students who don't get free admission are credit constrained? can't they just get a loan?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jhundal 12y ago
It's hard to know what the outcome of your education is going to be, so the risk of not being able to pay off a loan may just be too great. I am not aware of any elite colleges publishing statistics on things like the job placement rate and post-graduation income of lower income students. (On that note, if anyone knows where to get these numbers I would love to take a look.)
- nicholasdrake 12y ago
  i don't have the numbers but it's very interesting u say that because one of my best friends and i are actually going to apply to this summer yc batch with our idea of 'human capital' where we pay for poor, but very bright students to go to university and in return they give us a small % of their lifetime income. to be honest the reason we are excited about htis idea is actually more from the investor stand-point (would love ur feedback if u're interested http://nicholasdrake.svbtle.com/human-capital-investing-in-the-future http://nicholasdrake.svbtle.com/human-capital-investing-in-t...). but we also thikn it has lots of nice properties from the student side in particular, debt is constant regardless of your situation, whereas as we're 'taking equity' in the students if you can't find a job or only a low paying job you pay much less. of course, to make it balance it out if you are super successful you have to pay more, but we think for poor and thus likely risk averse students this is a great way to finance an education. would be really great to have your feedback if you have time.
  - lmartel 12y ago
    I can't comment on the numbers because I'm not familiar with the economics of those countries, but I have a few thoughts: 1) "Human capital" sounds really icky. Think of a new buzzword. 2) "Lifetime income" again gives off a bit of an indentured servitude vibe. I haven't done market research (although going by that writeup, neither have you), but I suspect people would be much more amenable to a larger percentage (10-25%) with an expiration date (say 10 years).
    - nicholasdrake 12y ago
      thanks for the feedback. yeah there is a definitley a danger that human capital just gets interpreted as slavery... i studied econ at uni where human capital is kinda the positive buzz word, like invest in educating your workforce etc. etc. u may very well be right that a higher percentage of income for a shorter period of time makes sense (or if it is lifetime income allow some buyout clause) - the big advantage of the lifetime aspect is you can basically trade future long-term consumption when you're income is higher to get higher consumption now when you're income is lower... it also allows a transfer from people who make lots of money to those who make less (when you apply to university you don't know which group you will be in)... your feedback is really helpful, if you have time please take a look at our yc app https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487, if it seems that we haven't done our research/holes in our thinking we defintley want to know now!! thanks so much!

sukilot 12y ago

You can't blame the ivies because other schools charge too much.

jordonwii 12y ago

Picking arbitrary fractions of the total number of students admitted misses the point. My understanding is that it comes down to school policy: those who are offered admission and accept, but have financial need (demonstrated via the FAFSA, or the equivalent for private universities, if not) are given financial aid proportional to their need. While applying to colleges, I noticed that this is the policy at many universities. As a result, the ones who get financial aid for tuition are the ones who really need it. Looking at the absolute number of students receiving aid isn't important.

acadien 12y ago
I wasn't clear and I think you missed my point, please see my edit.
randomnumber53 12y ago
Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too, debunking the common complaint that they don't admit low-income students because they'd rather admit students who can pay. It is also important to note that these types of policies are more common the more elite a university is.
- philwelch 12y ago
  Of course elite universities don't make admissions decisions based on income. They make admissions decisions based on things like "child of an alumnus", "high SAT scores", or "good grades at a private prep school", none of which are known to correlate with income /s
  - aianus 12y ago
    Intelligence is one of the most genetically inheritable traits. Combined with environmental factors it's no wonder SAT scores and grades would correlate highly with parental income.
    - hey-there 12y ago

swimfar 12y ago

Are you implying that there are people who get accepted to those programs but don't get free tuition because of limits to those scholarships? Or are you talking about the talented high school students who aren't quite "good" enough to get accepted to one of these schools? If it's the latter then it's not really fair to only include the number of students who get free tuition from the top 5 or so schools. There are many other good private and public schools which provide partial or full scholarships for good students. Some examples include Texas A&M, Duke, and Dartmouth[1]. Also, any high schooler in Georgia who graduates with at least a 3.0 GPA gets 4 years worth of tuition to an in-state university (including Georgia Tech) as long as they hold that GPA through college[2]. The University of Alabama has something similar as well. There are other optiosn which base the tuition scholarships on ACT scores [3]. Here are 26 schools with achievement-based and 15 schools with need-based scholarships [4] (There's starting to be some overlap in my lists) These don't all include the total cost (housing and food), but there are other grants and scholarships that could help with that. I'm sure part of the problem is making kids aware of these opportunities. I can see how, if they don't have good guidance counselors, they may just assume nothing like them exists. It would be interesting to see some statistics on how many students take advantage of these opportunities. (And just to be clear, I'm not implying that we can't improve the situation, only that people often underestimate the amount of help that is available) [1] http://affordableschools.net/20-tuition-free-colleges/ http://affordableschools.net/20-tuition-free-colleges/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship [3] http://panthersfutures.weebly.com/colleges-with-free-tuition-based-on-act.html http://panthersfutures.weebly.com/colleges-with-free-tuition... [4] http://www.advantageedu.com/blog/2008/100-free-college-rides-you-dont-need-daddy-to-pay-for/ http://www.advantageedu.com/blog/2008/100-free-college-rides...

acadien 12y ago
Please check my edit above. Thanks for the extra information. It would have been nice if the article author brought up some statistics that could show whether programs like these are under used.

randomnumber53 12y ago

Okay, but you could use that logic to claim (possibly validly, though I don't think so) that nobody should care about the Ivies because they only make up a fraction of schools (.08% times 5 = .4% of admissions, according to your data). This is not a sound argument, though, since very few of the 5 million students admitted to universities in the US would be competitive applicants at the Ivies. The pool of competitive applicants is much, much smaller. "To address most of the responses below. I'm implying that even if all appropriate students applied for these programs, as the article suggests, it wouldn't make a difference because some tiny fraction of them would be admitted." The article doesn't suggest that every student should apply, just that many academically qualified students are missing an opportunity to apply (even if that opportunity only results in a ~10% chance of acceptance, that's still a missed opportunity). EDIT: Formatting.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>Okay, but you could use that logic to claim (possibly validly, though I don't think so) that nobody should care about the Ivies because they only make up a fraction of schools (.08% times 5 = .4% of admissions, according to your data). This is not a sound argument, though, since very few of the 5 million students admitted to universities in the US would be competitive applicants at the Ivies. The pool of competitive applicants is much, much smaller. Well, we mostly shouldn't care about the Ivies. We want to solve the problems of the masses, not of some Chosen Elect (even if the Choice is based on academic qualification, weighted by personal background).