College Admissions: The Formerly-Privileged Class Feels Threatened
The days when all you needed to get into Harvard, Princeton or Yale was to have a father, grandfather or great-grandfather who went to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale are long gone, right?
Of course not. We all know that legacy preferences still exist at the upper echelon universities. And even though where your daddy went to school is not considered in admissions decisions in any other country, most Americans are willing to tolerate legacy preferences because colleges have opened their doors to students from all backgrounds in recent years. Women, Jews, African Americans, Latinos, poor kids, etc. now have an opportunity to sit next to the Vanderbilts and Rockerfellers at Harvard and Yale. Right?
Not really. Ironically, just as college admission policies seem to moving away from the old school class-based approach, class ends up mattering more than ever.
A report from the Century Foundation found that preferences for students of color and/or from low-income backgrounds have actually declined over the past 30 years at selective colleges as a whole.
Some schools are trying to change this. Harvard announced a new, widely-publicized, and generous financial aid package for upper-middle income students. Yale decided to spend more of its endowment to give kids financial aid, and schools like Davidson and UVA are working to recruit economically-disadvantaged students.
However, rarely do colleges and university administrators speak openly about the reasons that the class divide has gotten so out of control.
As colleges have tried to level the playing field, open their doors and expand their applicant pool, the formerly-privileged class began to feel threatened. They perceived that their children's seats in the Ivy League were no longer secure and became determined to reinstate their advantage. They devote all their resources to preparing for college-getting their children into the right kindergartens, junior highs, high schools, sports teams, test prep classes, etc.
And now we're dealing with a massive achievement gap. I mean massive.
For example, I just wrote a book about five amazing kids from various socioeconomic backgrounds applying to Harvard. All of them graduated high school with numerous AP classes under their belts. One was an Olympic-level athlete, another did breakthrough Alzheimer's research, one was a math-whiz etc. Not all of them got into Harvard, but they were all extremely well prepared for higher education.
I am now doing research with a cohort of freshman in Baltimore colleges, all of whom went to Baltimore City High Schools. Many of these kids had only two years of math (Algebra I and II), used junior high text books for 11th and 12th grade subjects, had no access to computers (the ones at school were usually broken), and could not take their text books home because their high schools assumed that they would lose them.
I ask you: how can these kids ever compete?
Whoever said that class isn't important in America never visited a high-poverty, inner-city high school.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A capitalist country elitist? Hey the two go together like hot dogs and buns.
Capitalism is designed to be elitist.
The middle class in America have not figured that our yet. They are too busy working two jobs to make the house payment on a house they bought that was too expensive for them.
There is dumb and dumber and when I look at the brainwashed middle class in America I see dumber.
Hey a lot of them voted for the actor that gave them the trickle down theory. Suckers.
So true! Anyone that thinks that there is an easy climb for those that work hard from the lower economic classes is blowing smoke up our skirts.
Those that are wealthy start so far ahead of those that are not that the non-wealthy can't even SEE where the wealthy START, much less catch up.
The deck is so stacked, that the non-wealthy don't ever get to SEE the deck, much less play with it.
Hi Folks--
Some stark ironies emerge whenever this topic is discussed.
First,the largest barrier to the top elite schools is not affordability. Harvard has been providing need blind admissions for over 40 years. In fact, the lower your family income, the better your chance that you will receive a financial aid such as a full scholarship, which will not require repayment. The problem is that Harvard's admissions rate is only 9 percent. And I noted in my earlier post, there is a plausible connection between Ivy League credentials and career mobility.
Second, legacy admissions illustrate vividly illustrates the challenge U.S. higher education faces in the pursuit of diversity. Who stands the better chance of admission to Harvard-- the white public school graduate with an excellent transcript and extracurricular experience or the black private school graduate with an equally good transcript but whose dad is an alum?
The answer is they both will probably get in. But being a legacy will stand out in a pile of applications where all other factors are equal. Remember: 9 percent.
Finally (at least in this post), let's call this for what it is. Legacy admissions is a form of affirmative action-- and one about which the majority of AA critics suddenly fall strangely silent. If being the child of a college's alum gives a student's application a case for deeper consideration (and at Harvard, it does), and if historically college enrollments have reflected easier access opportunities for Caucasians (which they do) then legacy admissions continually proves that the assertion of color-blind admissions in higher education is a sham.
BTW, anyone who is really interested in the history of admissions should read The Chosen by Jerome Karabel (another HuffPo blogger, incidentally). It discusses how admissions at Harvard, Yale and Princeton evolved over the course of the 20th century, from literally not having admissions offices in the early 1900s to where we are today. It's detailed as hell, but a great read and entirely wroth the time and effort to make it through.
I never understood the emphasis on the 'Ivy League'. There are PLENTY of institutions of higher learning that are at least as good.
It's like locally, it seem like all you hear is USC or UCLA and only because they have lotsa high profile sports teams. There are many more both public (CSUN, CSPU, UCR, UCI, CSUF, CSULB, CSULA etc.)and private (Claremont Colleges, Redlands, Chapman, Loyola Marymount, Pepperdine etc.) that are at least as good as, and they must be working as there are enough occupations and government positions that can be filled by their grads.
When I was in college, I had a girlfriend from a poor family (lived in Harlem, NY). She was quite smart, a graduate from Stuyvesant H.S.
Actually she had to drop out of college because she was too smart. I can't recall the name of the scholarship program (it was 15 years ago), but she did not qualify because her grades were too high. The idea was that if she had good grades, then she must not be disadvantaged enough. Being too poor to pay for college was insufficient.
I don't know if she was ever able to go to college again.
About taking home books: I couldn't let my 6th grade science students take the books home, because there were only enough books for one class. Each class had to do their science reading during class.
---
I did give out math books, one to each student. The books were never returned. The next year, the school district ended up spending about $1700 for more 6th grade math books. That year, the teacher did NOT give each kid a math book to take home.
---
It certainly does make a difference to prospective employers if someone's resume has "big name" schools listed. Those schools are called prestigious because their degrees carry prestige. However, if one wants to learn, then one gets out of any college what one puts in.
---
Sometimes I think that the most important thing one can do at any college, though, is join a fraternity or sorority. Instant friends! Instant connections! Future employment! I never joined because the very idea sickened me, but I bet I'd have been better off if I had "gone Greek." My PhD has closed more doors than it has opened, but I've never known any frat boys (or sorority girls) who had trouble finding a job.
Fortunately, nobody ever said that, so your post is hopelessly undermined. By the way, in America, we don't have "classes". People have different incomes, but frequently move between income levels. Of course having money matters. Why else would so many people be trying to get it? The struggle to improve our lives is a virtuous process for the most part. It drives us towards excellence.
The egos of parents who think that their kids should qualify for Ivy League schools is almost embarrasing to hear. They weren't built for most of you. Most kids are average. At best. More importantly, most kids parents are average. If you're only realizing this when your kids are ready for college, you're way too late.
I am thick in the college admission process.My daughter has applied to 9 schools.NO Ivy leagues although some are considered top tier.
A few salient points about admissions that I have learned..
We live in a small suburban school district. Good but very "middle" when it comes to incomes.Sc
And every year I see no Yale, no Harvards Last year I finally asked WHY??? I was told by one of the guidance counselors that they have no "relationship" with any of the Ivies.This year was the FIRST time Yale even visited and apparently it had to do with the new principal. So inner city schools are already at a disadvantage as I doubt they have these relationships.
If you are a school and want to be "fair" to those who can't write a $50,000 check and or don't want our kids to be in debt forever get RID of early decision..
If you have big endowments go loan free like Harvard and Swarthmore.
Make the admission process a lottery.Mo
It's not even about that anymore as we have let the colleges and Universities have a blank check. They can decide to raise tuition and no one wants to stand up and say NO.
The Texas 10% rule is the best thing that ever happened to Texas Colleges. It levels the playing field so that every high school student can hope to get into UT. A student close to me wanted to go to UT-Austin but did not meet the 10% rule. This young person had every opportunity to achieve that 10% and did not make the effort. I'm glad someone else got the spot - they obviously wanted it more.
I have heard that there has always been someone in the White House from Yale, either the President or the VP. Is that an urban myth?
One thing they could do is make it illegal for universities receiving federal money to discriminate in favor of children of alumni in their admissions. That alone might effect a considerable change.
Subsidies have destroyed the inner city family by creating a debilitating dependency, the banking cartel has destroyed the value of our money while enriching the financial elites, and the War on Drugs has only succeeded in driving up the profits to be made selling mind and feeling-numbing drugs to the demoralized inhabitants of our cities. This one-two-three punch cannot be rectified by more of the same set of policies, namely government intervention at the Federal level in the form of welfare, the granting of obscene special privileges to the banking cartel, and the continued and even expanded illegalization of drugs. There is an entire underclass that is now shut out of the upper-echelon schools, for reasons of race and money. Throwing more money at the problem will not solve it---indeed it has NOT solved it. Only leaders in the various blighted communities can overcome these disadvantages by facing the problem directly, and acting creatively and decisively. It is a falsehood that it takes a great deal of money to educate children. It only takes the will of a determined leadership. Unfortunately this is something that cannot be legislated, and it is definitely not being addressed in the disgusting sound-bites of the current crop of platitudinous, parasitical politicians (with the exception, I must note, of Ron Paul).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
