Posted on 07/24/2023 8:48:49 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
There are many possible lessons that can be drawn from this new study on elite college admissions but however you slice the data, it reveals that it’s very good to be rich if you want to get into a top school. Take a look at this graph. The x-axis is parent’s income. The y-axis is half-as-likely to be admitted up to twice-as-likely to be admitted.
There are all sorts of caveats here but the basic idea is that people who all scored the same on the SAT have a much higher chance of getting in if they are in the top 1% and somewhat lower chance if they are in the upper-middle class. What accounts for the difference? Here’s how the NY Times reports the outcome:
The new data shows that among students with the same test scores, the colleges gave preference to the children of alumni and to recruited athletes, and gave children from private schools higher nonacademic ratings. The result is the clearest picture yet of how America’s elite colleges perpetuate the intergenerational transfer of wealth and opportunity…
In effect, the study shows, these policies amounted to affirmative action for the children of the 1 percent, whose parents earn more than $611,000 a year. It comes as colleges are being forced to rethink their admissions processes after the Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action is unconstitutional.
We’ll come back to nonacademic ratings in a moment but first, note that outstanding test scores of the kind that are needed to get into top schools are not evenly distributed. On this graph the x-axis is the same as the graph above. As you can see, students who get a 1500 or higher on the SAT are disproportionately at the top of the parent’s income scale.
The chances of getting a top score is much higher in the top 10%, which could be the result of several things. Maybe it’s because these kids went to great prep schools or took test prep classes that other parents couldn’t afford. I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility of cheating of some kind though I’m not sure how you could pull that off. In any case, top scores are not evenly distributed across the range of incomes. This follow-up graph shows that admissions rates are even higher at top income levels than top scores can account for. Notice the x-axis on this graph has changed. This is just the top 10% of earners.
But again, we have to remember that test scores aren’t the only factor here. In other words, admissions officers aren’t looking at SAT scores and then setting everyone whose parents are in the top 1% of earners in a special pile. Instead, there are other factors which are driving the admissions of the students of top earners. One of the things this study looked at was the actual ratings given to applicants by several top schools (they wouldn’t say which one they were working with).
As the Times sums it up: “Students from the top 1 percent with the same test scores did not have higher academic ratings. But they had significantly higher nonacademic ratings.” So why is this happening? It may be that the very rich are more likely to go to elite prep schools which will give students glowing reviews.
The biggest contributor was that admissions committees gave higher scores to students from private, nonreligious high schools. They were twice as likely to be admitted as similar students — those with the same SAT scores, race, gender and parental income — from public schools in high-income neighborhoods. A major factor was recommendations from guidance counselors and teachers at private high schools…
Recommendation letters from private school counselors are notoriously flowery, he said, and the counselors call admissions officers about certain students.
My own view is that the kids from wealthy families probably are more likely to excel in school for a bunch of reasons. The test scores seem to back that up but so long as the excellence being measured is coming from the students themselves, that fine with me. It’s still their academic merit that is being considered even if the rich have advantages instilling that merit in their kids.
However, recommendation letters are different. How many kids can the school counselor really know and recommend? I went to a high school with more than 2,000 students. I only met the councilor once, when I was applying for colleges. Of the 600 or so students in my graduating class, how many could she really recommend?
Also, there’s a pretty obvious amount of self-interest in an elite private school offering students who come from the wealthiest families lots of attention. Those are the families paying full tuition and who have the potential to make gifts to the school above and beyond tuition. Practically speaking, it makes sense that counselors would have a lot of positive things to say about those particular students. In fact, pissing off the parents of one of those students could be a problem for their own career.
Obviously that’s very different from the situation in public schools. Those counselors likely have more kids, fewer wealthy parents and don’t have to care about them at all if they don’t want to. It literally won’t benefit them to do so.
The recommendation letters from private school counselors really do feel like a cheat, i.e. something produced by another adult whose job is to please the wealthy parents or at least not disappoint them. Those recommendations may accurately reflect some merit of the applicant or they may not. Maybe the counselors are just good writers who know what college admissions staffers want to hear.
Bottom line: Standardized test scores are not the enemy of fairness. Some students may get extra help or go to better schools but at the end of the day the test is still a measure of what they actually know. Non-academic ratings written by paid adults seem much more like a system that is open to abuse and favoritism and that’s what seems to be happening.
Not sure how you can look at this data, ostensibly be interested in either meritocracy or equality, and want to move away from standardized tests. It's the subjective measures that are most slanted in favor of the rich kids.
https://t.co/r4rNYBnrfK pic.twitter.com/S8w8HQ0yz9— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 24, 2023
Captain Obvious spreading clarity.
I believe more and more people are starting to see that. “College” is a place where morons go to learn to make protest signs and play in the streets when they aren’t gone to “spring break” and getting high.
They actually needed to do a study to figure out what is obvious to everyone with a minimum of commonsense?
Could it be that rich people are smarter, more competitive, more driven, and can afford better secondary education?
That’s why people want to be rich.
Duh.
A captain obvious moment for the writer. Not mentioned is being richer gets you into elite colleges to make you stupid.
I am so tired of this conversation, Harvard and Yale are TINY schools! Harvard is only 7153 students, and Yale is only 6,536!
Of course they are going to reject most applicants!
Um, smarter kids tend to come from smarter parents—who tend to have higher incomes.
Yes, there is that 2.2x better acceptance rate for equal scores, but that is a fraction of the advantage given to preferred minorities.
I’d get public funds out of higher ed in general, other than community colleges, so colleges would legitimately have more freedom as to whom they accept.
A pledge goes a long way to admission. I got into Harvard law school simply because my girlfriend’s grandparents were known wealthy people of NYC. I didn’t decide to go, but admission was guaranteed regardless of any normal admissions requirements.
This, I think, is one of the key areas where the Left goes wrong.
They seem to see the world as a Zero-sum game. The only reason I can possibly have "stuff" is because I stole it from you. I guess wealth cannot increase. I guess I cannot add value. No. All of my stuff has simply been stolen from you.
So, if you look around and see successful white people, that means that they have robbed black people. That's how this zero-sum game works.
Now, the Left realizes that making black people all become rich and successful is not something that the Left is capable of. And so, to balance things, the Left's primary goal seems to be to stop the rich from living good lives. Take stuff away from hard-working, successful people. Make white people miserable. That's the "solution" that the Left offers.
” students from private, nonreligious high schools... were twice as likely to be admitted as similar students — those with the same SAT scores, race, gender and parental income — from public schools in high-income neighborhoods”
It is likely that students in private school are given more hours of instruction, more homework, and better instruction, so that they are more articulate, know more languages, and generally better educated. Otherwise the money spent on private school would be wasted. Also, extracurricular sports is required at many private schools. They are studying and working out until 5:30 while the public school kids are playing video games or worse.
You don’t have to be rich to learn nowadays. A graduate with an online degree earned under rigorous testing and standards is worth more to an employer that a Harvard degree doled out via ethnic quota to students with an entitlement mentality. The Ivy League isn’t what it used to be.
I worked for a company that sold SaaS that built financial and philanthropic profiles on people. Some of our biggest and best customers were higher ed. They would actually screen applicants prior to admission and base their decisions on their worthiness.
““Being rich really helps you”...
_get into an elite college...
_live in a better house...
_get better health care...
_drive better cars...
_take better vacations...
_etc., etc., etc. ...”
Live by a different set of laws
As long as wealth isn’t abused there’s nothing wrong with it it’s every humans goal to live a better life it’s how we got here.
Nothing dishonorable with being poor it’s just a harder life.
Which is better for a school’s economic viability: wealthy parents who can pay full tuition, room, board, and fees? Or students from less wealthy families that require scholarships, grants, and loans and mat default?
There seem to be a number of online courses where the motivated can be well edumacuted in short order on specific topics.
````````````````````````````````````
One of my grandsons is taking an online course in German language, he loves it, he’s nine years old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
