defend the indefensible: THE IVY LEAGUE

I'm totally on-board with the just-as-good-an-education elsewhere, but that only goes so far. We give over so much capital to Ivy graduates. Every other 'first-time novelist' paperback I pick up at Border's has a Harvard-educated author, half the new film directors spent time at an Ivy, et al. - I don't believe that has anything to do with the Ivies having such a high percentage of great writers or talented artists (or businesspeople, politicians, anything else), and everything to do with their socio-economic status and the name on their degree.

I worry that we're limiting opportunities for the vast quantity of creative, talented, intelligent people out there who didn't go to an Ivy. Their educations and skill levels might be just as good, but they're being shuffled off into obscurity (or middle management suburbia) because they don't have the connections.

The sole reason that wealthy people have better grades is that they don't have jobs? Do you have any figures on how many high school students at different income percentiles have jobs and/or extracurricular activities (do you really believe that admissions committees don't consider a job one of the higher forms of 'extracurricular activity' and don't give greater weight to applicants who had to work while in school?). Maybe the quality of the school they attended had something to do with it too?

And is SAT test prep the sole reason that wealthier students do better than poorer students? My parents easily could have afforded a class, or years of classes. I never took one.

The current admissions criteria at such schools - including consideration of factors such as race, athletic participation, "legacy" status, etc. - produces a student body in which 10% of students are "low income," according to the study by The Century Foundation, referred to in milo's first post here. According to that study, if factors other than grades and test scores are eliminated from consideration, the percentage of "low income" students rises to 12%, the graduation rate also rises slightly, and the student population of African Americans and Latinos drops from 12% to 4%. The authors conclude that race-based admissions should be continued and expanded to increase racial and income diversity simultaneously.

I wonder how milo proposes to conduct an admissions process without reference to grades and test scores.

I never wanted to go to an Ivy (though I had a junior-high infatuation with Duke/Duke basketball - too bad I don't have any depth perception!), so my resentment (if it is that), has more to do with the cultural status of them

Haha. Have you ever been to the East Coast?

One way to measure the low income population of student bodies is to look at the percent eligible for Pell Grants, i.e. with family incomes less than $30K. In 2001, UCLA's undergrad student body contained more such students than any other highly selective institution, at 36%, higher than the national average of 22.6%. Ivies Columbia and Cornell* are not far off the national average, at about 17%. The rest of the Ivies are closer to 10%, with, of course, Princeton down below 8, but even then this reveals that most of the Ivy schools have at worst half as many low income students as other colleges do.

Another note - in all of these statistics, we're looking at the percentage of low income students who attend these schools, not the percentage of such students that are admitted. I wonder how many of those admitted attend.

*admittedly, Cornell contains several undergrad colleges, of which only one is an Ivy

(I don't remember seeing applications that asked about work experience, for that matter.)

The Duke article pretty much reiterates exactly what has been said - the Ivies are not the intellectual powerhouses they're cooked up to be. But that doesn't deal with the cultural perception.

I found the CF report - it's not purely based on income (as I read the original)

"There is even less socioeconomic diversity than racial or ethnic diversity at the most selective colleges (see Table 1.1, page 69). We find that 74 percent of the students at the top 146 highly selective colleges came from families in the top quarter of the SES scale (as measured by combining family income and the education and occupations of the parents), just 3 percent came
from the bottom SES quartile, and roughly 10 percent came from the bottom half of the SES scale."

FWIW, at least. (Even going by income - if the Ivies are at 10%, that's still too few)

As to your last one - aren't those linked? Can you have more "low income" students without leaving out "high income" students?

Did you say you went to an Ivy?

*starts go-go dancing*

chop it as well

Well, Harvard does. I'm sure the rest of the Ivies do too.

The Duke article pretty much reiterates exactly what has been said - the Ivies are not the intellectual powerhouses they're cooked up to be. But that doesn't deal with the cultural perception.

No, the article is quite clear that Duke is not up to the standards of the 20 serious academic institutions he posits, which includes, I'm sure, at least 4 Ivies, if not all of them.

FWIW, at least. (Even going by income - if the Ivies are at 10%, that's still too few)

Those numbers refer to the 146 institutions posited as the nation's highly selective universities. If you match them with my Pell Grant numbers, it's clear that all of the Ivies have a higher percentage of low income students than the average of those 146 institutions. So, in fact, the situation is better in the Ivy League.

'[Your] Pell Grant numbers' don't match up to those, being based primarily on income. The report goes into why it chose not to go on income. In addition, the $35k upper limit on family income for a Pell Grant takes it out of the lowest quintile and quartile of family incomes.

While we're at it - the concept of 'Ivies' was expanded early on in this thread, so harping on the Ivies v. Duke is rather irrelevant when they're both in the 'elite' club.

I don't really get your point here, other than "yeah, the Ivies are still totally geared toward the well-off, but it's not that bad."

Yes, and that's one (of the many) reasons that is making this thread pointless. If your list includes all selective colleges, what are you really talking about? Esp. when that list includes state colleges that have to take most anyone in state even if they can be more selective with out-of-state applicants. If standardized tests are biased (a pretty big if) and high school grades aren't comparabile from school to school (and they aren't) what selection criteria should there be?

You can be sure their 2d book isn't published if no one buys it. This thread is a conspiracy theorist's dream: It turns out the country is controlled by graduates of the top 750 colleges! Er, yeah, it does look that way.

What's pointless about this thread, other than you don't like to see people speak ill of the Ivies and 'elite' schools?

The anti-ivy rhetoric is unclear. The point of this thread is unclear too.

The Century Foundation report does go on income. Just not income alone. It adds information about parental education and occupation. The reason it doesn't go on income alone is that the income figures relied upon are reported by the student and subject to mistake. I assume that income for purposes of receiving a Pell grant is not merely reported by the student and must be verified. And adding parental education arguably skews their results wildly - I would imagine that college graduates, especially those of highly selective schools, are far more likely to send their kids to highly selective schools than others, regardless of income.

In addition, the $35k upper limit on family income for a Pell Grant takes it out of the lowest quintile and quartile of family incomes.

You're arguing that the Ivies are evil because only 10% of students at 146 schools come from the bottom two quartiles. The Pell grant information reveals that at every Ivy but Princeton 10% or more come from an even lower-income sample.

While we're at it - the concept of 'Ivies' was expanded early on in this thread, so harping on the Ivies v. Duke is rather irrelevant when they're both in the 'elite' club.

Well us elitist Ivy graduates don't accept such schools in our precious little club. *turns up nose* Actually, I see it the way the author of the Duke article does - some schools that are 'elite' are not especially rigorous; thus, their elite status may have more to do with socioeconomic status than does the status of rigorous schools, and this may be borne out in their admissions policies. If you accept that most, perhaps all, of the Ivies are rigorous (I think so, though I think that there are non-Ivies that are equally if not more rigorous), then the argument that the elite status of highly selective schools derives from the socioeconomic status of the student body is less applicable to the Ivies than to the non-Ivies.

And then the, frankly, hysterical notion that ivy league grads' books are published just because they went to certain schools. . . omg.

really

Consider Howard Dean, John Kerry, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Al Gore. All have similar backgrounds. Didn't all turn out the same way, nor do they think the same way.

%s of varying income groups admitted/attending. What is the "correct" proportion of each group? Why is that proportion desirable.

Are family connections limited to people from ivy schools?

The problem of self selection. In my experience, the people I went to school with as undergrads were almost uniformly motivated, prepared, and talented. This is not the case with my grad school class. If you're motivated enough to get to a certain school, you may be motivated enough to get a certain job, get your book published, whatever.

Of course people get jobs they don't deserve. Happens all the time. Wish it would happen to me some.

My point is that you used a study of the nation's 146 most selective schools to illustrate how awful the Ivies are, when in fact the Ivies are better than those in the study. Who else are you going to compare the Ivies to? At what level of selectivity does a comparison stop being relevant?

Nearly 20% of undergrads at Columbia come from families making less than $35K a year, as do nearly 10% of undergrads at the rest of the Ivies. The problem is?

Also, everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room - if the Ivies were not geared towards those who can afford them, they would cease to exist.

I think that's an unfortunate comparison. It's probably pointless even to participate in this kind of discussion because if you went to one of the schools in question, you automatically look like T. Howell III if you defend the schools. Anyway, Thurston thought Yale men were the most primitive on the planet, fwiw.

Also, forgive my hypersensitivity, but even in making the comment above, you're implying (and I'm inferring) an indirect charge of racism. And I don't think that's warranted.

The other argument, which I think is specious, is an anger at people at certain schools because they're rich. And a presumption that because they're rich, they're also unqualified, lazy, stupid, whatever. That certainly wasn't my experience, and I don't think it holds up statistically, as if such a thing could ever be empirically measured. Even the ivies can't afford to admit too many stupid rich people. They don't need to. They're are plenty of smart rich legacies to admit.

We have our ways.

"Not income alone" = what I said. That's where the difference is. The numbers I cited to start with aren't tied solely to income, and income is only one factor. What's your argument here? By their numbers 3%, based on income-only 10% - in either case, still putting the lower incomes at a disadvantage.

You're arguing that the Ivies are evil because only 10% of students at 146 schools come from the bottom two quartiles. The Pell grant information reveals that at every Ivy but Princeton 10% or more come from an even lower-income sample.
No, I didn't argue that. I cited a study, which you seem to have read, that states that 3% come from the bottom quartile (not quartiles), not based solely on income.

Once more, the Pell Grant isn't applicable. It has nothing to do with the SES stats this was written with. And, at $35k in the upper-limit, goes beyond the lowest 20-25% of family incomes.

But, just to cover this once more -

By the study cited, 3% come from the bottom quarter.
By your argument, choosing to limit it solely to Ivies, 10% come from the bottom ~35%.

Meaning - drumroll please - the Ivies (or the 146 most prestigious, either one), still place the worse off among us at a disadvantage. The extent of your disagreement is "well, it's not that bad." It's still a disadvantage.

(several x-posts)
Bullshit, Skottie, that had nothing to do with insinuations of racism. It's about the question being asked. "Well, the Ivies are bad here, BUT SO ARE THESE SCHOOLS." That's the same argument as "Well, yes, whites are racist, BUT SO ARE BLACK PEOPLE."

No one disagrees that there are black racists, but they aren't an issue. There's no widespread disadvantage for whites because of black racism.

Likewise, Ohio State's legacy admissions really don't mean anything - it's a 35k+ campus that isn't limited in socioeconomic status, and on top of that carries no special cachet as a name. Pretending the 'elite' schools are just like any other requires a lot of dancing around.

Gabbneb, once more, why do you continue to conflate the study with Pell Grant numbers? You can't make them analgous, because the Pell Grants don't take any other factors into consideration.

If you're motivated enough to get to a certain school, you may be motivated enough to get a certain job, get your book published, whatever.

Wow, you're a big believer in 'meritocracy', aren't you? I better get off this thread, because frankly, you're confirming a lot of stereotypes.

Gabbneb, I'm well-aware that the colleges would not survive if they didn't let people in who could afford the full tuition. My only point is that not everyone is there because of 'merit' - it doesn't stop people from being impressed because so-and-so went to an 'elite' school.

Consider Howard Dean, John Kerry, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Al Gore. All have similar backgrounds. Didn't all turn out the same way,

Oh my god, you can't be serious!

How can someone come out of Yale and not be able to understand someone else's argument?

This failure to 'understand' is exactly what pissed me off when I was in college. It is not about money. It is about people with enormous educational privileges who take them for granted.

I already told you once that I don't assume that all 'rich' people are unqualified. Just keep on misrepresenting my arguments.

How ironic that the same crap that annoyed me in college is annoying me on this very thread. I need to log off now and watch 'American Idol'.

Consider Howard Dean, John Kerry, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Al Gore. All have similar backgrounds. Didn't all turn out the same way,

Oh my god, you can't be serious!

Got me. You're right. I'm not serious about that. I do think they turned out surprisingly similarly.

There's no widespread disadvantage for whites because of black racism.

Likewise, Ohio State's legacy admissions really don't mean anything -
Yes, yes, I understand that. I'm sorry. That was directed to the "second line of discussion. To wit: I would imagine so. In my experience, the dumbest kids at school were the richest ones - they didn't have to work to compete - they got legacies, or their daddies gave lots of money to the school. Those were the ones who sat around their dorms all day getting drunk or snorting coke.

Sorry. I don't mean to. I will stop.

Zey laughed at me at zee university, but zey'll see ven I perform my song on American Idol!!! AAAAaaahhh hhaaaaaaa haaaaaa!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1063268554051_2003/09/12/Psych,0.jpg

Pell grants and the study's SES-based statistics are not analgous, in any way, shape or form.