
Don't Give Money to Fancy Colleges - jseliger
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/02/22/college_inequality_selective_schools_don_t_have_any_poor_students.html
======
lmm
> we can assume that very little of that 5% is coming from the really truly
> poor

No, you can't, not when it's the whole basis of your argument. My impression
at an elite university was that if anything the upper-working class was least
represented; there were plenty of students from the top, and some from the
very bottom.

If you're going to claim that Harvard or MIT's financial aid is poorly
targeted, you need to actually provide evidence for this.

~~~
hga
Upper working class and lower (perhaps) to mid-middle class families are
traditionally screwed by the general financial aid system. They're too "rich"
to quality for a lot of stuff for the poor, but aren't making enough to pay
for these sorts of colleges out of pocket. And at least as of the '80s, if
your parents did't pony up the expected amount, if you couldn't earn it
yourself you were f __*cked.

That said, MIT and Harvard have recently changed their systems; don't remember
about Harvard, but as I recall MIT's aim is to eliminate crushing student
debt. But I don't know how this plays out for them or in general for the
expected parental contribution.

Ah, yes, by and large no one from a broken family attends MIT, at least as of
the '80s, since both biological parents are or were expected to contribute and
that very seldom works out, on top of all the other things divorce does that
crushes children.

~~~
mjn
Harvard no longer charges anything (no family contribution, no student
contribution) if your family is below ~60th percentile in income (currently
around $65k/yr). Not sure if that's the range you have in mind with "mid-
middle class", but it covers everyone in the middle quintile or lower. Between
$65k and $150k they have a sliding scale, with full tuition charged over
$150k.

Stanford has the most generous tuition exemption I think, charging $0 tuition
if your family makes under _$100k_ (~80th percentile). They throw in free room
& board under $60k, too, so you effectively get paid to go to school in that
case (paid only an amount sufficient to cover living expenses, but still
something).

However, two universities providing free education to people around the median
income or lower is hardly a replacement for the once-free public university
system.

~~~
MichaelDickens
> Stanford has the most generous tuition exemption I think, charging $0
> tuition if your family makes under $100k

As someone with a family making under $100k who did not receive free tuition,
this is false.

~~~
Buge
It looks like that program started in 2008.

[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/february/stanford-
undergr...](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/february/stanford-undergrad-
tuition-021213.html)

------
alexeisadeski3
Isn't the purpose of these donations to help your children, and their
children, to get into the school? To establish your family as part of the
tradition of that institution? To say that you like what that school is and
does and that you want to connect yourself and your descendants to it?

~~~
chaz
MIT doesn't do legacy admissions: [http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/just-
to-be-clear-we-don...](http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/just-to-be-clear-
we-dont-do-legacy)

~~~
evoloution
Nice to clarify that, is there a list that seperates higher education
institutions based on the preference of legacy admissions? Maybe someone at
wikipedia could add legacy admissions yes or no in the right side panel of
each university there is data. Ofcourse then universities will just say they
don't consider legacy but they will do this anyway under the table...

Transparency on the alumni relations of each student is the only way to go I
guess...

~~~
danielweber
The most brutal school for admissions, where they look only at the students'
performance and not at creating any kind of "well-rounded student body," is
Cal Tech. I don't know how the others fall under them, but Cal Tech is on top
of that particular list.

~~~
tzs
It should be noted, though, that this does not mean Caltech is unconcerned
with a "well-rounded student body". They just do not use that as a factor when
they are actually processing applications. If they want to change the
demographics of the student body, they do so by trying to change the
demographics of the applicant pool.

For instance, when I was a student there (class of '82), the biggest
demographic problem within the student body was the severe imbalance between
men and women. The undergraduates were only around 15% women. That's
frustrating for pretty much everyone.

Caltech addressed this by trying hard to (1) get more qualified women to
apply, and (2) convincing more of those who were accepted to choose Caltech
over the other schools that accepted them. Essentially, they would treat a
bright high school girl with a talent for math, science, or engineering the
way schools with effective sports programs treated outstanding high school
athletes.

Nowadays, around 40% of undergraduates there are women.

------
Vervious
All that reducing donations to selective research universities will do is to
reduce the quality of research. Given that universities like MIT and Harvard
form the scientific backbone of the United States, I hesitate to condone the
idea of sacrificing that for the sake of reducing Ivy League "elitism."

It shouldn't be a situation where we have to pick 1 option out of 2. If you
really want to reduce the socioeconomic gap in education, spend more money on
public education as a nation. Donations from wealthy donors with next to no
affiliation to local community colleges won't solve anything.

~~~
ForHackernews
In the United States, most scientific research is funded through government
grants from agencies like the Department of Energy, Defense Department, or the
National Science Foundation. Comparatively little research is actually funded
from the endowments/operating budget of the universities themselves.

~~~
whathappenedto
Please don't make such a blanket statement. Donations do indeed fund
scientific research directly. When a faculty member is hired, they get a
"startup fund" to get through their first few years before they have grants,
most of which is donated money. There is also a lot of research which is not
"billed" to a grant, but is still meaningful, and supported by "internal
funds" which are smaller university fellowships for pilot projects. These
internal funds are also the only source of funding outside the physical
sciences (for areas like humanities and social science) and are almost
entirely provided for by donations.

~~~
pcrh
The amount of funding that the University supplies directly is obviously
dependent on the field, and it's own traditions. However, in biomedicine, when
a new prof has "startup" funds, these are often linked to their contributions
to teaching and "service", i.e. admin, pastoral care, etc; they can later
"buy-out" their service obligation by raising grants equal to their salary and
costs, or more. So the "startup" funds are usually not entirely paying for
research.

------
btown
Most people don't donate to an alma mater just to support financial aid for
lower-income students, nor just because they want to establish their family as
a legacy; they donate in order to improve the institution and the _quality_ of
education, research, and inspiration it produces. It's a way of paying it
forward, much the same philosophy as why people might go into education.

------
MetalMASK
The whole article is based on the assumption that people make donation to
universities as charitable donations. I find that a bit unrealistic. Give
money to universities are gesture of appreciation from alumni, gain more
opportunities of networking/recognition from the university for the donor and
his/her family, etc. For donations with the pure purpose of helping the poor,
there are other institutions for that.

------
mkbhd
The dynamism of America partly depends on new entrants into the uber-elite of
money and power. (Poor kids becoming super rich within one generation. They
shake things up and change the way things are done.

This is partly a result of: 1\. Poor kids getting into elite universities 2\.
The existence of highly elite universities

If you provide less funding to the Harvards and MITs of the world do you
really expect them to keep getting better and better?

And if the overtime become "less awesome" then the benefits one derives from
attending will decline.

In that case, the poor kid that managed to get into Harvard, etc (or any of
the Ivys, they all provide great financial aid) wouldn't benefit the way
today's attendee does. The path for that poor kid to break into the uber
wealthy just became harder.

The Mark Zuckerbergs, Steve Schwarzmans of the world make America dynamic.
Poor or middle class kids that break into the uber wealthy and disrupt the way
things are done.

Non-elite universities don't make that path easier - regardless of how much
money you throw at them.

Elite universities provide poor kids with things we need: 1\. Status /
credibility - maybe not important in tech, but definitely important in high-
finance, politics, etc

2\. Exposure to those who come from families that have done really well

3\. Access to leading faculty and research opportunities

You can throw tons of money at non-elite colleges, they still will not be able
to provide the above. I'm not saying that non-elite universities are useless -
they are incredibly important for having a healthy middle class.

But what makes America great in my opinion is that every few years 5-10 kids
that grew up poor make it to the top, change our world, and kick those that
were complacent while at the top out.

~~~
danielweber
If you contribute $5,000,000 to Harvard or MIT, the marginal number of
students from lower-middle-class and down backgrounds that would be admitted
over the next 10 years would change by 0. They are already need-blind.

There are other valid reasons to donate to a university, but the really big
names aren't going to start recruiting more poor kids if they only had a
little more money.

~~~
mkbhd
Agree completely. At the margin, $5m won't make a difference, just like at the
margin donating $10 to cancer research won't make a difference. But that $5m
check along with many other checks does make a difference - both in helping
these school achieve even higher levels of excellence and in their ability to
fund poor and middle class student tuition.

------
ef4
Elite institutions with big endowments get so little of their operating budget
from tuition that I don't think it's outrageous to expect one to break ranks
eventually and go tuition-free.

 _Then_ I will happily give, and I expect a lot of deep pocketed alumni feel
the same.

~~~
yetanotherphd
Tuition isn't really the issue. Most top schools have needs-blind admissions,
so conditional on getting in, you will get funding if you need it.

Inequality stems from the fact that by the time they reach college admissions,
students from richer families are already more qualified (at least in the eyes
of admissions committees). Addressing this would require either changing the
admissions process, or helping students from poorer families to become better
qualified prior to the admissions process.

~~~
Crake
It's totally an issue. If you're a transfer student, you'll find that the few
universities that go on about how proud they are to be need-blind and offer a
great education to everyone!...now all consider need in admissions, or don't
offer to meet your need even if you do get in.

Considering many low-income students start out at a community college, taking
even one credit at one effectively locks you out from virtually all
prestigious universities. It used to be the case that you COULD go from
community college to a fancy private, but it's all but impossible these days.

Combine this with what you mentioned in the second part of your comment, and
low-income kids are screwed both pre and post high school. It also screws over
kids of all income ranges with highly dysfunctional/abusive families (who
won't help with college, didn't support your pre-college
academics/extracurriculars, won't sign your FAFSA, etc), since the only thing
you can afford is a community college in those cases as well.

~~~
yetanotherphd
The stats at [http://transferweb.com/stats/transfer-acceptance-
rates](http://transferweb.com/stats/transfer-acceptance-rates) suggest that
top schools accept very few transfer students, and so I don't think it is an
important part of the issue.

------
yetanotherphd
Just because money benefits the rich disproportionately, it does not mean this
money is not well spent. This is because the students at fancy colleges are
not _only_ richer, but also smarter, more ambitious, and harder working, on
average. Furthermore, donations don't only benefit students, but researchers
working at those universities.

So while giving to fancy colleges is not necessarily the best use of money, it
is not enough to show that the students there are privileged. If the students
at those colleges were _only_ there because of their privilege, then the
author's point would make more sense.

------
Patrick_Devine
This post made me wonder why there isn't a Watsi for post-secondary education.
Why not make a service where people could contribute bursaries directly to
students or community colleges?

~~~
gohrt
One reason is that community college is already really well priced, and low-
wealth students are currently eligible for financial aid at most institutions
(community college and other colleges)

------
pkfrank
If your goal is to help increase the # of high-achieving, low-income students
at highly-selective colleges, you could choose to support a program such as
QuestBridge. They find / link low-income high school students -- who otherwise
wouldn't have the means or access to even apply to many of these schools --
with partner universities.

I'm not sure if the article is trying to persuade potential donors to instead
consider "lesser" colleges which might have more socioeconomic diversity. I
guess it becomes a question of supporting: fewer low-income students at
"better" schools; more low-income students at "worse" schools; or a totally
different strategy to level the economic playing field in higher education.

~~~
skywhopper
The last paragraph of the article answers your question: "If you want to do
something useful for low-income people, give them money. If you want to do
something useful for the education of low-income people, give some money to an
institution that educates kids from low-income families. That could be a
community college or a public charter school or an afterschool program or
neighborhood school or whatever you like."

------
ChristianMarks
A general principle is to never contribute to anyone else's power law
distribution.

------
plg
These elite colleges (like the ivy leagues) will often place significant
weight on "family legacy" factors when deciding whether to admit students.
What more do we need to say?

------
rayiner
I would argue that perpetuating hierarchy is almost the point of big
donations. Yale alums are invested in making sure their alma mater's endowment
keeps pace with that of Harvard and Princeton. Etc. The other part is
tribalism. If you're a Harvard alum you donate to Harvard because you believe
in their mission and want to help them carry out that mission. Other schools
can depend on their own tribes for the same.

I don't think donors are confused about these motivations.

------
xacaxulu
I'd never give money to a for-profit institution that sold something worthless
at an incredibly inflated price, it's just not smart business.

~~~
sosborn
Did you just argue that a degree is worthless? If you think it is tough
getting a job with a degree try getting one without.

~~~
rjbond3rd
Does that really apply to people with outstanding skills in, e.g.,
programming? I can't imagine something less relevant to programming than
formal education. It's not a good indicator for me.

~~~
quaffapint
Until big business changes - or heck even hiring at facebook - you need that
piece of paper. It's absurd a lot of times - forced to take a lot of
meaningless classes just to get a piece of paper that isn't worth a hole lot
vs real world experience.

