As a low-income student who attended an Ivy League university, I'd like to mention one more reason about why low-income students don't apply to elite schools.
They just don't fit in.
I was the best student in my shitty high school and so I applied and happened to get into an Ivy League school. The environment there was so incredibly different I just didn't fit in. Super-preppy good looking kids (they all are thin and tend to look good) who are invariably very well-spoken, totally expectant of all the resources lavished upon them, and just know how to talk to professors and interview for jobs and so on.
I was of a different breed. Ugly, fat, not well-spoken, no idea how to talk to professors, no gutso to challenge a nobel prize winner on his opinion. I was also somewhat shocked with the amount of resources provided to students. For example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted. That's about a quarter of what my family earns in a year. Not complaining, of course, but I hope you see how alien this environment was for me. Same was the case with interviews, I didn't have a suit and I had no idea how to bond with an interviewer over our shared love for some exotic sport like skiing.
I just didn't fit in. If I were to do it over again I would pick my Ivy League school again, but I recognize that it is an alien environment. I can totally see why another low-income student would be scared by all this and just not apply.
PS: If I went to a school like MIT maybe my experience would be different. I went to one of YPD, which are traditionally more preppy.
This matches my experience at Columbia completely. I felt completely out of place and estranged outside of a few geek-interest clubs. I'm lucky I found those — coming from public school, even a really good one, the culture shock was overwhelming.
>For example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted.
What... the... hell? Nobody gave us anything like that at a state school.
Yeah, it was the most surprising thing for me as well. Want to do unpaid internship? Here's $5000. Want to start a project in the third world? Here's another $5000. Want to do undergraduate research? Here's $1000 per term to help you out. Study abroad? Here's a plane ticket.
The amount of privilege there is in going to an Ivy League school is incredible.
It is a similar thing here at Princeton. It wasn't until recently that low income issues were discussed in the USG and groups like the Hidden Minority Council got attention. Even then, there is strong backlash.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
We had an "elite" SAT training program at my high school. (A very smart teacher ran it). Learned 100 words per week, by straight up rote memorization. Mastered math formulas to the point that you could do them without understanding the theory. Studied for the test, not for the concepts.
We all weren't learning anything useful. It was basic rote memorization, no concepts, no nothing. Students were pronouncing "Epitome" as "Epi-tom" (instead of "e-pit-tom-ee"). But it don't matter, as long as you recognized the unfamiliar words and memorized dictionary definitions... and then practiced analogies for 2 to 3 months at a time... you will get it.
We learned how the SAT was graded, how to pick out easy questions. How to skip the harder questions that mattered less for your score... and focus your mind (while it was still fresh) on the more important questions. We even learned patterns to hypothesize which of the sections wasn't gonna be graded. (one section of the SAT is not graded. It is a baseline for next-year's SAT)
After the SAT, most of us forgot the meanings of those words. But we got the score we needed to get into college.
Those who study the SAT have a supreme advantage over those who don't study it. Everyone who took the class shot up by like 200 points in both Math and Reading.
The teacher was very frank. It was a "study for the test", "beat the test" attitude. And frankly, it worked. I'm pretty sure anyone who went through the training I did would have scored 1300 minimum on the 1600 test.
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Male, Female, Christian, Jewish, Muslims. Everyone you can think of was in this class, and everyone got significantly better at taking the SAT.
> Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too
Need-blind? Like, purely based on merit? I don't think that's helpful. If the point is to help disadvantaged kids, their scores need to be weighted by their circumstances.
As far as I understand it, they ignore FAFSA information but could probably still get an idea of the kid's background based on school, personal statements, etc. I'll admit, it sounds like this wouldn't be as effective for helping disadvantaged students. On the other hand, I think it gives schools plausible deniability for admitting a high number of students who wouldn't need financial aid, giving the school more money.
What happens when those circumstances have disadvantaged a child in a way that cannot be recovered (for example, I've seen a documentary on over medicated children who were screwed up by the medication so badly that they still have clear issues even years after being taken off).
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).
>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).
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)
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.
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.)
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-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.
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).
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, if it seems that we haven't done our research/holes in our thinking we defintley want to know now!! thanks so much!
This reminds me of the story about the high school kids that took on MIT and many other schools in an underwater robot competition and won. This exerpt from the article at the bottom sums it up:
During one scene in "Underwater Dreams," the Carl Hayden team members head to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to meet with members of the 2004 team they defeated. The MIT alums talk about their current jobs. Three are involved in underwater robotics, with one headed to a project in Antarctica. Another designs accessories for Apple products.
One student then asks the Carl Hayden team what they are up to.
It's a scene that Mazzio says has made audiences in test screenings uncomfortable.
"It's heartbreaking," she said. "Here you have kids that can compete and that clearly are innovative, that love to build and to fuel the country forward ... We need these kids, and they face these impediments."
> Of the four, only one, Vazquez, has a job in an engineering-related field. Arcega is attempting to start his own consumer electronics business. Santillan has a catering business and a job at a restaurant. Aranda is a janitorial supervisor at the Maricopa County courthouses.
> All four entered the country illegally as children. For three of the four, their legal status has been an obstacle to entering college or finding employment.
> "I can't let that get to me," Arcega said, "because that's always going to be an uphill battle with everything."
Kind of left me hanging so thought I'd add the conclusion in here.
Every time I hear these stories I always think to myself, if those guys became engineers, they'd eventually make around $100K. At a modest 20% tax rate, thats 20K a year in revenue for our country.
What you say is true. What is not true is that those children were typical illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants have low educational background and their incomes will reflect that. They and their citizen children are usually a net drain on the government. Legal immigrants are a different story. If you want to argue for Open Borders go for it but the current US immigration system is a clusterfuck that makes no sense on any level. It's also extremely unlikely to be reformed for many, many reasons.
>The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments, The Congressional Budget Office
>According to available estimates, there are about 12 million unauthorized immigrants
in the United States. Federal, state, and local governments spend public funds that benefit
those immigrants, and those immigrants pay individual income, sales, and property taxes.
Most available studies conclude that the unauthorized population pays less in state and local
taxes than it costs state and local governments to provide services to that population. However,
those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable basis for developing an
aggregate national effect across all states.
Note that that's restricted to state and local taxes vs. spending, it does not include federal taxes and spending, so isn't (aside from the additional explicit disclaimer of utility in the last sentence there) a basis for any conclusion about net impact to government overall.
It may not be terribly strong evidence but it's certainly evidence on the net impact on government. Illegal immigrants do not generally get the kind of high paying jobs it takes to be a net tax payer. As Mitt Romney infamously publicised, they're only 47%. And while adult illegal immigrants probably commit less property crime than citizens, their American citizen children are less law abiding than average.
Illegal immigrants are at best marginal payers into the fisc. They increase competition for land/housing and may have negative effects on labour market outcomes for natives by depressing wages. And they entered your country illegally.
If you want to argue for Open Borders or increased humanitarian immigration go for it. I'm sympathetic if not convinced. Illegal immigrants usually have a massive increase in standard of living. But most of America's illegal immigrants are from Central and South America, and the well educated portions of those countries do not immigrate to the US illegally.
> Illegal immigrants do not generally get the kind of high paying jobs it takes to be a net tax payer. As Mitt Romney infamously publicised, they're only 47%.
No, Romney didn't "publicize" that net tax payers considering all sources of taxes vs. all costs are "only 47%", he made some false implications based on a claim that about 47% pay no income tax (which was true, even if the implications he tried to make from it were not, if one assumes he was talking specifically about federal income tax.)
But federal income tax isn't the only tax, (or the only federal tax, or even the only federal tax on income), and the people not paying it aren't only the poor, and who is or isn't paying federal income tax isn't who is or isn't a net tax payer (and, even more clearly, who isn't paying federal income tax isn't equivalent to who is a net tax payer, which is what your presentation of the meaning of the 47% would claim.)
> But most of America's illegal immigrants are from Central and South America, and the well educated portions of those countries do not immigrate to the US illegally.
Sure they do; I've personally met several well-educated professionals who did that were later beneficiaries of the 1980s amnesty, and the fundamental reason why they did hasn't changed since then. For many decades, one of the major sources of illegal immigration from Mexico is that the waiting time in the main family preferences categories is decades long because of per-country limits that guarantee that the supply of visas for qualified, desirable immigrants under the basic purposes of the family-centered immigration policy is perpetually misaligned with demand.
It disappoints me that so many commentators on the NPR site infer from the title--"Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply To Elite Schools"--that the article is essentially bashing "big fancy private college[s]" for being overpriced and not-worth-it.
In contrary, it author/article is trying to find and explain why the above misconception exists.
And it seems as though the people this article would most help don't even read it.
The Ivy League has a big problem promoting their financial aid packages. A lot of people don't know that low-income students can attend for free. There is no catch, it really is free, as the article here has mentioned.
The Ivy League needs to do a much better job getting the word out about this to the students who might benefit from it.
The Ivy League schools have all sorts of quotas that they work with as well. My cousins were denied entry to a few schools because other students in their school were admitted early admission. There are other geographic quotas beyond school... They wouldn't want to overrepresent North Dakotans.
The admissions game is a game that is difficult to win unless you invest substantial time in the process. My sister probably could have made it into Harvard or Yale, but my parents worked 12-14 hours a day and had no time or money for admissions coaches. We all turned out ok.
It is interesting that people are talking about the Ivies, not "elite colleges" in general. The article defines a high achiever as "anyone who gets a 29 or better on the ACT or a combined 1,300 on the SAT." At most elite schools (Ivies + MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc.) a 30 ACT score would be rather below average.
I think people lump MIT/Caltech/Stanford into Ivy bucket, even though they're superior to half the Ivies.
You're right about the score. My guess is that these schools have different yardstick for rural + low income factors. And more importantly, they have billions in endowment to be able to 'afford' the fancy yardstick.
I didn't learn Ivies commonly gave free rides until a while into my undergraduate at my state public university. I think what you're seeing is more an issue of questioning the specific assumptions that prevent the question from springing to mind, than it is knowing how to answer questions by searching the internet. Remember that their low-income parents and public school are probably doing very little or nothing to guide them through the applications process, and quite likely not even much to grok the sort of cultures where you have selection processes that require a lot of effort and domain knowledge, in general.
This is a non-trivial case of jootsing if you aren't already immersed in a culture that brings you most of the way to asking the question. It's a serious test of reflective intelligence, unlike SATs and acquiring grades and conforming to the college admissions process which are pretty much all about algorithmic intelligence (using Stanovich's terminology).
It's no different than asking "will google hire me" when you're applying for jobs. Most people won't even consider google thinking that the bar is too high, when it may not be for a given individual.
In some situations, getting the parental income information can make for an awkward conversation. If the students assume they won't get in for absolutely free, they might decide against asking their parents probing financial questions.
This is different than the FAFSA.
When I last filled it out, the FAFSA had an option for you to send a link to your parents, so they could fill in their information without disclosing it to you. Unfortunately, money is a taboo topic in American families, and I don't doubt that many applicants feel more comfortable using this option.
great point on parental income. Or anybody's income for that matter. It's a sensitive topic. Some will ask for things like cash holdings / equivalent, which is probably even more of a third rail.
This article hits it on the head with the local counselors and lack of recruiting past certain zip codes. The counselor problem is mitigated a little bit by the internet, but the recruiting is still problematic.
When I graduated in the late 80's, I had score on both tests above what was stated (ND is an ACT state, but I took the SAT also), and a DOE (energy) summer program entrance (1 per state). There was no recruiting and our school had zero resources[1]. Only outside information that got back to me (I wrote several schools for admission information) was Texas A&M with a oil industry scholarship and the state colleges. Went to the state college.
This is one of the reasons I get a bit riled up anytime someone says we have a talent shortage in the US. We have plenty of talent, its just not convenient.
To add insult to injury, my high school counselor screwed up a form that would have given me $2,000 a year scholarship. I was a bit peeved. He was a bit too busy with a rumored side business.
1) including the crap library - couldn't use the library in the next town as it had a nice border to keep the riffraff out. taxes you know.
I still remember the day my father pulled me aside and told me in secret (my mom would have freaked out) that we couldn't really afford college. He recommended that I stayed close to home and to go to a local school, which I did for 4+ years with an average of four hours a day worth of commuting. Occasionally, I also had a part time job that added almost two more extra hours of commuting because it took me to another side of the town and I had to walk half a mile to get to work after getting off the bus.
actually my friend and i are applying this summer batch of yc with an alternative to student debt financing of university... student equity.. from the student side it helps in 2 ways 1. taxes high income earners more, low income earners less (remember when you start uni you don't know for sure which group you will be in) 2. allows you to transfer future income from your middle-age when your income is higher to when you have just graduated (and income is lower)..
debt in comparison punishes procrastination of payment with interest payments.. it would be great to get your feedback if you have teh chance.. we've posted our draft of our yc application here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487 thanks!
The article mostly takes as a given that attending the 'elite' school would be better for these students. There's one quote late in the article, from the article's main source Stanford econ professor Hoxby, suggesting there's a big lifetime earnings-boost after graduating from top schools.
But, the actual story is a bit more complicated. Some research suggests that admitted students capable of attending top schools, who then choose to go to 'lesser' schools, do just about as well. Here's coverage of one such study:
Also note that the studies supporting big lifetime earnings boosts for either 'college' or 'elite colleges' tend to be based on graduating, not just enrolling. Graduation is not automatic, especially among low-income/first-generation admits. A student who chooses a nearer, cheaper, less-prestigous school may be increasing their chances of graduating enough to offset the premiums-conditional-on-graduation elsewhere.
There are some very-credentialist fields where school-prestige is of paramount importance – especially college education itself (graduate degrees/professorships) and some high-dollar finance/consulting/law careers. But there are many other careers, just as attractive to students and society, where college-prestige is far less important. For these, if a student plans to settle back near their hometown, the education and contacts from a locally-respected institution may be as good or better than a far-away prestigious degree.
So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually know better what's right for them.
The very study you linked to actually disproves your comment. For most students, there isn't much of an economic advantage to attending an elite university.
However, as Krueger highlights in the NYT article, for underprivileged students attending a prestigious university does have a significant impact on earnings (even after controlling for ability). So the very students this NPR article is talking about are those who would most benefit from attending a prestigious university.
> So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually know better what's right for them.
Nope. They would almost invariably do better by going to an elite university. Doing so will provide a significant earnings boost, not to mention that it's usually free. Intelligent low income students will usually get the best aid package from an elite university (usually a grant covering tuition, room, and board), thus making that choice cost effective even in the short run.
We need to encourage more low income students to realize that elite universities are a great option for them. On the flip side, middle income students should wake up to the reality that attending a second rate private university is a terrible economic decision.
Looking into the 2011 Dale/Krueger study, the "significant" boost for minorities wasn't gigantic and had caveats.
For the attended-in-1976 minority cohort, they found a 6.7% higher income in 2007 for those choosing a more selective – but falling to 1.6% (said by the authors to be "indistinguishable from zero") if the selectivity-outlier historically-black colleges were excluded. For the entered-in-1989 minority cohort, the income boost in 2007 was higher – 12-14%, and survived the exclusion of historically-black colleges. (One way to interpret that might be: the income boost becomes smaller the longer you're out of college.)
Perhaps most interesting: if a student's parents had an average of 12-years education (~high school), selective-attendance gave a 5.2% income boost. But if parents had an average of 16-years (~college), selective attendance gave no income benefits.
But none of these boosts among less-privileged subgroups are very large. The paper also mentions some reasons its estimates of the benefits of selectivity (even where negligible) could be too high, including:
* if selective schools are more generous with financial aid – you and the NPR article both suggest this is the case
* if students with high unobserved earning potential are more likely to attend selective schools – seems likely to me, when a student is confident they have the skills, ambitions, or personal contacts to earn a lot post-graduation
So sure, include the Dale/Krueger subgroup estimates in the pitch that selective colleges make. But many low-income students might hear, "you'll get roughly a 5-14% income boost"… and still pass, picking less-selective colleges that match their other academic/community/career/family/friend priorities.
I get why the elite universities want more low-income enrollees: it's a key part of their self-image of outreach & uplift, helps justify their immense costs to others, and immunizes them against other criticisms. But for the low-income students themselves, even given a more-than-zero benefit shown by Dale/Krueger, it's not a slam-dunk decision. When such students choose elsewhere, they may be expressing their own smarts and self-knowledge.
The title has the assumption students should be applying to 'elite schools'.
First, Stanford/MIT/... cannot get as many smart students as needed. If the top 10% of US students deserved an elite school, that'd be nearly 0.5M students/year: an impossible number for these institutions.
Secondly, for many students, such education might not be the wisest choice. Fortunately, I went to a local college and had more time to learn things on my own. Instead of going to Psychology classes and studying for finals, I contributed to open source projects and went to hackathons. At Harvard, I would never do these things on my own.
It makes a lot more sense once you come to realize that these places aren't about promoting and driving social mobility, and rather they exist to sustain existing positions by strengthening and fortifying class divide. (all the while collecting a nice tithe in the process) In essence, they serve the wealthy by keeping the wealthy, wealthy. They earn their keep in terms of donations for the service they provide.
The few token kids who come from the real world who are given a free ride each year are there just to provide window dressing. Most of them indeed seem out of place, and often have looks of dejection on their faces.
I have some personal experience with the Ivy League and I was really unimpressed. Since choosing a school is such a big gamble, especially in an increasingly competitive world, I don't want to make claims as to what people should do... but...
I really do like the strong public university systems on the west coast. They are actually truly diverse places, and while some may be resource lean, I think they tend to lead to a lot more social mobility.
If you ask me, I think we'd be a whole lot better off if these places weren't unconditionally lent the credibility they enjoy.
"Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply to Elite Schools"
Seems rather self-explanatory, doesn't it? "Elite" schools are typically outrageously priced so unless you (or your parents) have a bunch of money to throw around, accumulating Ivy League debt would seem rather stupid.
You're actually incorrect, I just did not articulate my point fully (in fact, did a downright bad job) or reread my comment.
When I later reread my original comment my initial reaction was "where did the rest of it go?"
In this same reply thread morgante guided me to enlightenment on the important point left out of my original comment, which I was mistaken about anyhow.
Finance is the last reason in the article, but likely the most influential factor. The hoops required aren't worth jumping through to go to a "selective" school anyhow, unless you want to take the opinion of people who work for the most selective school in the country. That'd be pretty naive, wouldn't it?
The article is specifically about the widespread myth (which you're repeating) that elite schools are too expensive for low income students.
If you'd actually bothered to read the article, you'd note that most elite universities actually provide extensive financial aid to low income students. In fact, probably the easiest way to afford an Ivy is not to have oodles of money—it's to have very little money, as families making under $60,000 annually typically receive a full ride.
> And I don't put much credence in something said by someone who's on the payroll of an institution poised to benefit from them saying selective schools benefit people long-term.
I don't even understand what you're trying to imply there. Why do you think that an NPR reporter would benefit from (accurately) reporting that elite universities are affordable? If anything, she'd probably get more pageviews from repeating the tired myth that elite universities are unaffordable.
Not to mention that financial aid isn't something universities can lie about. It's pretty easy to demonstrate the elite universities do in fact give fantastic aid packages. I know this anecdotally from the packages I received (including a full ride), but you could also note that the average Princeton graduate has a total of only $5,000 in loans.
Why would people want to necessarily go to a selective school? The evidence supplied that selective schools make a difference was Caroline Hoxby of Stanford-- the most selective school in the country. She might have just a little bias.
When you're ultra-selective you're not picking losers or incapable people; those people had a high chance of success before they even went to college. So saying people who graduated from selective colleges do better is really a hard thing to measure unless it's a formal study, which isn't mentioned.
All of the evidence supporting any reason you'd want to go in the first place is either empirical and provided without data, and/or from someone with strong bias. Can you explain why smart people would want to pursue this kind of thing anyhow?
Most people of limited means are reasonable and don't "need" things like a fancy name on their diploma. Maybe it's just me, but I think selective schools are overrated so the premise of the article is a little ridiculous.
For underprivileged students, it's pretty clear that attending an elite university materially increases economic outcomes—even after controlling for the students themselves (a poor student who gets into both Yale and their local state university will do better if they go to Yale).
Not that I expect you to actually listen to reason, since you're basically insinuating that tenured professors are making up evidence to boost undergraduate applications (if you think that's something professors would actually do, you clearly haven't spoken to many). If you're going to discount any research with a connection to a major university, it will indeed be hard to find any research.
That definitely makes it more meaningful since it provides a tangible benefit to low-income graduates (also latino, black, and those whose parents did not graduate college), which was not made clear by the original article. That's the distinction not made in common discussion.
They just don't fit in.
I was the best student in my shitty high school and so I applied and happened to get into an Ivy League school. The environment there was so incredibly different I just didn't fit in. Super-preppy good looking kids (they all are thin and tend to look good) who are invariably very well-spoken, totally expectant of all the resources lavished upon them, and just know how to talk to professors and interview for jobs and so on.
I was of a different breed. Ugly, fat, not well-spoken, no idea how to talk to professors, no gutso to challenge a nobel prize winner on his opinion. I was also somewhat shocked with the amount of resources provided to students. For example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted. That's about a quarter of what my family earns in a year. Not complaining, of course, but I hope you see how alien this environment was for me. Same was the case with interviews, I didn't have a suit and I had no idea how to bond with an interviewer over our shared love for some exotic sport like skiing.
I just didn't fit in. If I were to do it over again I would pick my Ivy League school again, but I recognize that it is an alien environment. I can totally see why another low-income student would be scared by all this and just not apply.
PS: If I went to a school like MIT maybe my experience would be different. I went to one of YPD, which are traditionally more preppy.