Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very interesting article. It really shows in very graphic terms just how stacked against achievement the system is, and how absolutely rigged the rankings and selectivity of colleges is.
Apparently, it is very easy to get into most of the "best" schools, as long as mommy and daddy can foot the bill. I plugged the three schools I attended into the calculator and none was exactly stellar on a meritocracy scale. In fact, the most telling chart of all was the mobility from bottom 40% to top 40% chart. It speaks volumes about the obstacles poor people have in achieving wealth when they've attended an elite, $$$$$ school.
Thanks for posting this; I would have missed it since I rarely look at the NYT Upshot, a sub-site I see as pandering to precisely the audience that most benefits from the current status quo.
I'm not sure what this is really saying. There's an obvious political point, but I'm not sure the causal factors are show so much as confounding two results from the same hidden cause. One chart that hints at real causes is the one showing income vs school graduated from. Elite school graduates do better than other schools and there is little difference in outcome for elite school graduates based on parent's income. This carries an implication that innate ability does play a part in outcome. Not something we're very willing to acknowledge in our current world view.
My university isn't included in the list so I have no idea where it falls.
I'm not sure what this is really saying. There's an obvious political point, but I'm not sure the causal factors are show so much as confounding two results from the same hidden cause. One chart that hints at real causes is the one showing income vs school graduated from. Elite school graduates do better than other schools and there is little difference in outcome for elite school graduates based on parent's income. This carries an implication that innate ability does play a part in outcome. Not something we're very willing to acknowledge in our current world view.
My university isn't included in the list so I have no idea where it falls.
What it is very clearly showing, and I don't think there's anything obscure about it, is that - in the example of a place like Washington U. (ranking 19 in latest US News lottery) - 21.7% of all students matriculating came from families in the top 1% of the income structure nationally. That's pretty clear to me and, unless you're suggesting that people in the top 1% of the income structure are genetically predisposed to be Mensa candidates, the obvious, direct conclusion is that something else (like a big pocketbook) accounts for such an astoundingly disproportionate number of matriculants from that strata.
The problem with our times isn't so much a denial of the laissez-faire view of intelligence and perseverance as much as a denial of clear, factual information when squarely placed before us.
BTW: You can very easily add your school to the results by typing it in the box kindly provided by the NYT.
If accepted, parental income is not an obstacle to attendance. I think that many low- and middle-income families are not aware of the generosity of these schools and do not apply. Apply to Your Top Choice School!
What it is very clearly showing, and I don't think there's anything obscure about it, is that - in the example of a place like Washington U. (ranking 19 in latest US News lottery) - 21.7% of all students matriculating came from families in the top 1% of the income structure nationally. That's pretty clear to me and, unless you're suggesting that people in the top 1% of the income structure are genetically predisposed to be Mensa candidates, the obvious, direct conclusion is that something else (like a big pocketbook) accounts for such an astoundingly disproportionate number of matriculants from that strata.
The problem with our times isn't so much a denial of the laissez-faire view of intelligence and perseverance as much as a denial of clear, factual information when squarely placed before us.
BTW: You can very easily add your school to the results by typing it in the box kindly provided by the NYT.
No. What's happening is that parents with money are more likely to send their kids to the "top" high schools (which tend to be private and expensive, or in pricey school districts). A poor kid at Andover on scholarship is just as likely to be accepted as a rich kid if the grades are similar. These schools specialize in taking smart kids and prepping them for high grades on the SATs and AP exams, as well as the kinds of extracurricular that enhance college applications. But less poor kids have access to the Andovers of the world, so this is what happens. If an elite school isn't willing to take a chance on a certain number of top poor kids from iffy schools (and hand over a ton of financial aid in the process), this is the outcome.
It's not as simple as "mommy and daddy were rich so they were accepted".
No. What's happening is that parents with money are more likely to send their kids to the "top" high schools (which tend to be private and expensive, or in pricey school districts). A poor kid at Andover on scholarship is just as likely to be accepted as a rich kid if the grades are similar. These schools specialize in taking smart kids and prepping them for high grades on the SATs and AP exams, as well as the kinds of extracurricular that enhance college applications. But less poor kids have access to the Andovers of the world, so this is what happens. If an elite school isn't willing to take a chance on a certain number of top poor kids from iffy schools (and hand over a ton of financial aid in the process), this is the outcome.
It's not as simple as "mommy and daddy were rich so they were accepted".
This is what I got out of it too.
People loooove to trot out the "poor kids would go to Ivy League/elite schools for free!" line, but it's really not as simple as that. Wealth generally doesn't *directly* influence admissions (unless your parents are wealthy enough to donate large sums of money to the university), but the things that wealthy parents can provide for their children - tutors, ACT/SAT prep, funding for interesting extracurriculars/unpaid internships, private schools/affluent public schools whose college counseling departments have relationships with admissions officers at elite schools, help with writing essays/perfectly crafting the app, music lessons, books, travel, etc. - certainly makes for appealing applications. Less affluent students simply do not have access to this capital and thus admission is more difficult.
It doesn't matter how much financial aid a school gives out if you lack the resources to get in in the first place.
Wealth allows above average/smart kids to maximize their potential. Going to the best primary and secondary schools, intensive SAT preparation, private tutoring etc., all contribute to the outcomes. Poorer kids may have the same or greater innate ability but they have to navigate far more obstacles just to get to the same place.
I went to a "wealthier" school, one of which is pretty consistently ranked top in the province. A lot of people like to imagine it as providing a lot of extra programs and opportunities, but it didn't really. We followed the same curriculum as everyone else, our teachers had the same level of education, and the buildings were old (or as they'd say "historic").
The main difference was the parents. Most were successful professionals, and straight up demanded nothing but the best from their kids. Success was no more optional than breathing. It has paid off: 20% of my class are now doctors and dentists. Every single person is a productive member of society.
The difference at home is the same reason why the experiment of throwing all that money into the Kansas city school district yielded nothing. Success starts at home. There should really be a licence to be able to have kids, but that will never fly, so the inequality will never go away. It's not the money really, it's much deeper than that.
What it is very clearly showing, and I don't think there's anything obscure about it, is that - in the example of a place like Washington U. (ranking 19 in latest US News lottery) - 21.7% of all students matriculating came from families in the top 1% of the income structure nationally. That's pretty clear to me and, unless you're suggesting that people in the top 1% of the income structure are genetically predisposed to be Mensa candidates, the obvious, direct conclusion is that something else (like a big pocketbook) accounts for such an astoundingly disproportionate number of matriculants from that strata.
The problem with our times isn't so much a denial of the laissez-faire view of intelligence and perseverance as much as a denial of clear, factual information when squarely placed before us.
BTW: You can very easily add your school to the results by typing it in the box kindly provided by the NYT.
No, it's not clearly showing that. Yes, the article wants you to conclude it's the big pocketbook. You saw what they wanted you to see, but the data doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion. That's just confounding two results from other, not included causal factors, as being cause and effect. You could draw the conclusion that the traits that lead to success correlate with measures of success, those measures being economic (top 1%) and school selectivity (as in this example).
And yes, I did enter my school. Came back no data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
