
Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply to Elite Schools - eroo
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/393339590/why-many-smart-low-income-students-dont-apply-to-elite-schools
======
littletimmy
As a low-income student who attended an Ivy League university, I'd like to
mention one more reason about why low-income students don't apply to elite
schools.

They just don't fit in.

I was the best student in my shitty high school and so I applied and happened
to get into an Ivy League school. The environment there was so incredibly
different I just didn't fit in. Super-preppy good looking kids (they all are
thin and tend to look good) who are invariably very well-spoken, totally
expectant of all the resources lavished upon them, and just _know_ how to talk
to professors and interview for jobs and so on.

I was of a different breed. Ugly, fat, not well-spoken, no idea how to talk to
professors, no gutso to challenge a nobel prize winner on his opinion. I was
also somewhat shocked with the amount of resources provided to students. For
example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in
living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted.
That's about a quarter of what my family earns in a year. Not complaining, of
course, but I hope you see how alien this environment was for me. Same was the
case with interviews, I didn't have a suit and I had no idea how to bond with
an interviewer over our shared love for some exotic sport like skiing.

I just didn't fit in. If I were to do it over again I would pick my Ivy League
school again, but I recognize that it is an alien environment. I can totally
see why another low-income student would be scared by all this and just not
apply.

PS: If I went to a school like MIT maybe my experience would be different. I
went to one of YPD, which are traditionally more preppy.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>For example, for unpaid summer internships my college just gave out $5000 in
living expenses so undergrads could do any unpaid internship they wanted.

What... the... hell? Nobody gave us _anything_ like that at a state school.

~~~
littletimmy
Yeah, it was the most surprising thing for me as well. Want to do unpaid
internship? Here's $5000. Want to start a project in the third world? Here's
another $5000. Want to do undergraduate research? Here's $1000 per term to
help you out. Study abroad? Here's a plane ticket.

The amount of privilege there is in going to an Ivy League school is
incredible.

------
acadien
The Ivy Leauge admits roughly 20,000 students every year [1]. Lets say they
give one fifth of those get free admission. That is a total of 4000 kids which
is practically nothing!

Roughly 5 million people are admitted to University every year in the US[2]!
So maybe 0.08% of all University students get a free ride at an ivy league.
Really this makes no difference except for padding the Ivy League's
statistics, its of little to no help for most 'talented low income' highschool
students.

[1][http://theivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissions-
statistics/](http://theivycoach.com/ivy-league-admissions-statistics/)

[2][http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98](http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98)

Edit: To address most of the responses below. I'm implying that even if all
appropriate students applied for these programs, as the article suggests, it
wouldn't make a difference because some tiny fraction of them would be
admitted. There are very few opportunities for low income students unless they
are willing to take on the burden of debt. Some lottery that gives a tiny
fraction of them free tuition is not a solution, it is offensive to suggest
they have opportunities they simply do not have. Fix the broken system,
correct tuition costs!

~~~
jordonwii
Picking arbitrary fractions of the total number of students admitted misses
the point. My understanding is that it comes down to school policy: those who
are offered admission and accept, but have financial need (demonstrated via
the FAFSA, or the equivalent for private universities, if not) are given
financial aid proportional to their need. While applying to colleges, I
noticed that this is the policy at many universities.

As a result, the ones who get financial aid for tuition are the ones who
really need it. Looking at the absolute number of students receiving aid isn't
important.

~~~
randomnumber53
Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too, debunking the
common complaint that they don't admit low-income students because they'd
rather admit students who can pay.

It is also important to note that these types of policies are more common the
more elite a university is.

~~~
gradstudent
> Most colleges are moving towards need-blind admissions too

Need-blind? Like, purely based on merit? I don't think that's helpful. If the
point is to help disadvantaged kids, their scores need to be weighted by their
circumstances.

~~~
mirithekiwi
As far as I understand it, they ignore FAFSA information but could probably
still get an idea of the kid's background based on school, personal
statements, etc. I'll admit, it sounds like this wouldn't be as effective for
helping disadvantaged students. On the other hand, I think it gives schools
plausible deniability for admitting a high number of students who wouldn't
need financial aid, giving the school more money.

------
rickdale
This reminds me of the story about the high school kids that took on MIT and
many other schools in an underwater robot competition and won. This exerpt
from the article at the bottom sums it up:

 _During one scene in "Underwater Dreams," the Carl Hayden team members head
to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to meet with members of the 2004
team they defeated. The MIT alums talk about their current jobs. Three are
involved in underwater robotics, with one headed to a project in Antarctica.
Another designs accessories for Apple products.

One student then asks the Carl Hayden team what they are up to.

It's a scene that Mazzio says has made audiences in test screenings
uncomfortable.

"It's heartbreaking," she said. "Here you have kids that can compete and that
clearly are innovative, that love to build and to fuel the country forward ...
We need these kids, and they face these impediments."_

[http://www.azcentral.com/story/life/az-
narratives/2014/07/17...](http://www.azcentral.com/story/life/az-
narratives/2014/07/17/phoenix-high-school-win-mit-resonates-decade-
later/12777467/)

~~~
lugg
> Of the four, only one, Vazquez, has a job in an engineering-related field.
> Arcega is attempting to start his own consumer electronics business.
> Santillan has a catering business and a job at a restaurant. Aranda is a
> janitorial supervisor at the Maricopa County courthouses.

> All four entered the country illegally as children. For three of the four,
> their legal status has been an obstacle to entering college or finding
> employment.

> "I can't let that get to me," Arcega said, "because that's always going to
> be an uphill battle with everything."

Kind of left me hanging so thought I'd add the conclusion in here.

~~~
vinhboy
Every time I hear these stories I always think to myself, if those guys became
engineers, they'd eventually make around $100K. At a modest 20% tax rate,
thats 20K a year in revenue for our country.

~~~
barry-cotter
What you say is true. What is not true is that those children were typical
illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants have low educational background
and their incomes will reflect that. They and their citizen children are
usually a net drain on the government. Legal immigrants are a different story.
If you want to argue for Open Borders go for it but the current US immigration
system is a clusterfuck that makes no sense on any level. It's also extremely
unlikely to be reformed for many, many reasons.

~~~
alphydan
> They and their citizen children are usually a net drain on the government

Do you have a credible source for that? Particularly one which compares the
cost to the country of not having cheap labour vs. having cheap labour?

~~~
barry-cotter
>The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local
Governments, The Congressional Budget Office

>According to available estimates, there are about 12 million unauthorized
immigrants in the United States. Federal, state, and local governments spend
public funds that benefit those immigrants, and those immigrants pay
individual income, sales, and property taxes. Most available studies conclude
that the unauthorized population pays less in state and local taxes than it
costs state and local governments to provide services to that population.
However, those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable
basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states.

~~~
dragonwriter
Note that that's restricted to state and local taxes vs. spending, it does not
include federal taxes and spending, so isn't (aside from the additional
explicit disclaimer of utility in the last sentence there) a basis for any
conclusion about net impact to government _overall_.

~~~
barry-cotter
It may not be terribly strong evidence but it's certainly evidence on the net
impact on government. Illegal immigrants do not generally get the kind of high
paying jobs it takes to be a net tax payer. As Mitt Romney infamously
publicised, they're only 47%. And while adult illegal immigrants probably
commit less property crime than citizens, their American citizen children are
less law abiding than average.

Illegal immigrants are at best marginal payers into the fisc. They increase
competition for land/housing and may have negative effects on labour market
outcomes for natives by depressing wages. And they entered your country
illegally.

If you want to argue for Open Borders or increased humanitarian immigration go
for it. I'm sympathetic if not convinced. Illegal immigrants usually have a
massive increase in standard of living. But most of America's illegal
immigrants are from Central and South America, and the well educated portions
of those countries do not immigrate to the US illegally.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Illegal immigrants do not generally get the kind of high paying jobs it
> takes to be a net tax payer. As Mitt Romney infamously publicised, they're
> only 47%.

No, Romney didn't "publicize" that net tax payers considering all sources of
taxes vs. all costs are "only 47%", he made some false implications based on a
claim that about 47% pay no _income_ tax (which was true, even if the
implications he tried to make from it were not, if one assumes he was talking
specifically about _federal_ income tax.)

But federal income tax isn't the only tax, (or the only federal tax, or even
the only federal tax _on income_ ), and the people _not_ paying it aren't only
the poor, and who is or isn't paying federal income tax isn't who is or isn't
a net tax payer (and, even more clearly, who _isn 't_ paying federal income
tax isn't equivalent to who _is_ a net tax payer, which is what your
presentation of the meaning of the 47% would claim.)

> But most of America's illegal immigrants are from Central and South America,
> and the well educated portions of those countries do not immigrate to the US
> illegally.

Sure they do; I've personally met several well-educated professionals who did
that were later beneficiaries of the 1980s amnesty, and the fundamental
_reason_ why they did hasn't changed since then. For many decades, one of the
major sources of illegal immigration from Mexico is that the waiting time in
the main family preferences categories is decades long because of per-country
limits that guarantee that the supply of visas for qualified, desirable
immigrants under the basic purposes of the family-centered immigration policy
is perpetually misaligned with demand.

------
randomnumber53
It disappoints me that so many commentators on the NPR site infer from the
title--"Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply To Elite
Schools"\--that the article is essentially bashing "big fancy private
college[s]" for being overpriced and not-worth-it.

In contrary, it author/article is trying to find and explain why the above
misconception exists.

And it seems as though the people this article would most help don't even read
it.

~~~
vinhboy
Don't worry, NPR already did a story on how many of their commenters don't
actually read their articles.

There is also a weird amount of astroturfing in the NPR comment section.

------
twblalock
The Ivy League has a big problem promoting their financial aid packages. A lot
of people don't know that low-income students can attend for free. There is no
catch, it really is free, as the article here has mentioned.

The Ivy League needs to do a much better job getting the word out about this
to the students who might benefit from it.

~~~
pcurve
Most Ivy has means testing calculator that will tell students what their
tuition would be.

In the days of internet, I actually found it surprising that many of these
brilliant students didn't know that they can get free rides at Ivys.

~~~
randomnumber53
It is interesting that people are talking about the Ivies, not "elite
colleges" in general. The article defines a high achiever as "anyone who gets
a 29 or better on the ACT or a combined 1,300 on the SAT." At most elite
schools (Ivies + MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc.) a 30 ACT score would be rather
below average.

~~~
pcurve
I think people lump MIT/Caltech/Stanford into Ivy bucket, even though they're
superior to half the Ivies.

You're right about the score. My guess is that these schools have different
yardstick for rural + low income factors. And more importantly, they have
billions in endowment to be able to 'afford' the fancy yardstick.

------
protomyth
This article hits it on the head with the local counselors and lack of
recruiting past certain zip codes. The counselor problem is mitigated a little
bit by the internet, but the recruiting is still problematic.

When I graduated in the late 80's, I had score on both tests above what was
stated (ND is an ACT state, but I took the SAT also), and a DOE (energy)
summer program entrance (1 per state). There was no recruiting and our school
had zero resources[1]. Only outside information that got back to me (I wrote
several schools for admission information) was Texas A&M with a oil industry
scholarship and the state colleges. Went to the state college.

This is one of the reasons I get a bit riled up anytime someone says we have a
talent shortage in the US. We have plenty of talent, its just not convenient.

To add insult to injury, my high school counselor screwed up a form that would
have given me $2,000 a year scholarship. I was a bit peeved. He was a bit too
busy with a rumored side business.

1) including the crap library - couldn't use the library in the next town as
it had a nice border to keep the riffraff out. taxes you know.

------
fiatmoney
"High-scoring on SAT" (take this as a proxy for "smart"; after all, colleges
do) & "low income" correlates well with 3 groups in particular:

1) Recent Asian immigrants

2) Rural whites in flyover country

3) Urban children of (white and Asian) parents in low-paying prestige
professions (teachers, museum curators, nonprofits, etc).

~~~
sukilot
Teachers are not low-income.

~~~
fiatmoney
Depends on the area and specialty. Adjuncts are notoriously ill paid. North
Carolina public school teachers likewise.

------
mattmurdog
I still remember the day my father pulled me aside and told me in secret (my
mom would have freaked out) that we couldn't really afford college. He
recommended that I stayed close to home and to go to a local school, which I
did for 4+ years with an average of four hours a day worth of commuting.
Occasionally, I also had a part time job that added almost two more extra
hours of commuting because it took me to another side of the town and I had to
walk half a mile to get to work after getting off the bus.

~~~
nicholasdrake
why didn't u get a student loan?

~~~
dragontamer
So that he didn't have to join Occupy?

[http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-...](http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/g-cvr-111025-loans-7p.grid-6x2.jpg)

Or have we forgotten about that already?

~~~
nicholasdrake
haha good point..

actually my friend and i are applying this summer batch of yc with an
alternative to student debt financing of university... student equity.. from
the student side it helps in 2 ways 1. taxes high income earners more, low
income earners less (remember when you start uni you don't know for sure which
group you will be in) 2. allows you to transfer future income from your
middle-age when your income is higher to when you have just graduated (and
income is lower)..

debt in comparison punishes procrastination of payment with interest
payments.. it would be great to get your feedback if you have teh chance..
we've posted our draft of our yc application here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224487)
thanks!

------
gojomo
The article mostly takes as a given that attending the 'elite' school would be
better for these students. There's one quote late in the article, from the
article's main source Stanford econ professor Hoxby, suggesting there's a big
lifetime earnings-boost after graduating from top schools.

But, the actual story is a bit more complicated. Some research suggests that
admitted students _capable_ of attending top schools, who then choose to go to
'lesser' schools, do just about as well. Here's coverage of one such study:

[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-
the-...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-
elite-colleges/)

Also note that the studies supporting big lifetime earnings boosts for either
'college' or 'elite colleges' tend to be based on _graduating_ , not just
_enrolling_. Graduation is not automatic, especially among low-income/first-
generation admits. A student who chooses a nearer, cheaper, less-prestigous
school may be increasing their chances of graduating enough to offset the
premiums-conditional-on-graduation elsewhere.

There are some very-credentialist fields where school-prestige is of paramount
importance – especially college education itself (graduate
degrees/professorships) and some high-dollar finance/consulting/law careers.
But there are many other careers, just as attractive to students and society,
where college-prestige is far less important. For these, if a student plans to
settle back near their hometown, the education and contacts from a locally-
respected institution may be as good or better than a far-away prestigious
degree.

So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite
schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually
know better what's right for them.

~~~
morgante
The very study you linked to actually disproves your comment. For _most_
students, there isn't much of an economic advantage to attending an elite
university.

However, as Krueger highlights in the NYT article, for underprivileged
students attending a prestigious university _does_ have a significant impact
on earnings (even after controlling for ability). So the very students this
NPR article is talking about are those who would most benefit from attending a
prestigious university.

> So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite
> schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually
> know better what's right for them.

Nope. They would almost invariably do better by going to an elite university.
Doing so will provide a significant earnings boost, not to mention that it's
usually free. Intelligent low income students will usually get the best aid
package from an elite university (usually a grant covering tuition, room, and
board), thus making that choice cost effective even in the short run.

We need to encourage more low income students to realize that elite
universities are a great option for them. On the flip side, middle income
students should wake up to the reality that attending a second rate private
university is a terrible economic decision.

~~~
gojomo
Looking into the 2011 Dale/Krueger study, the "significant" boost for
minorities wasn't gigantic and had caveats.

For the attended-in-1976 minority cohort, they found a 6.7% higher income in
2007 for those choosing a more selective – but falling to 1.6% (said by the
authors to be "indistinguishable from zero") if the selectivity-outlier
historically-black colleges were excluded. For the entered-in-1989 minority
cohort, the income boost in 2007 was higher – 12-14%, and survived the
exclusion of historically-black colleges. (One way to interpret that might be:
the income boost becomes smaller the longer you're out of college.)

Perhaps most interesting: if a student's parents had an average of 12-years
education (~high school), selective-attendance gave a 5.2% income boost. But
if parents had an average of 16-years (~college), selective attendance gave no
income benefits.

But none of these boosts among less-privileged subgroups are very large. The
paper also mentions some reasons its estimates of the benefits of selectivity
(even where negligible) could be too high, including:

* if selective schools are more generous with financial aid – you and the NPR article both suggest this is the case * if students with high unobserved earning potential are more likely to attend selective schools – seems likely to me, when a student is confident they have the skills, ambitions, or personal contacts to earn a lot post-graduation

So sure, include the Dale/Krueger subgroup estimates in the pitch that
selective colleges make. But many low-income students might hear, "you'll get
roughly a 5-14% income boost"… and _still_ pass, picking less-selective
colleges that match their other academic/community/career/family/friend
priorities.

I get why the elite universities want more low-income enrollees: it's a key
part of their self-image of outreach & uplift, helps justify their immense
costs to others, and immunizes them against other criticisms. But for the low-
income students themselves, even given a more-than-zero benefit shown by
Dale/Krueger, it's not a slam-dunk decision. When such students choose
elsewhere, they may be expressing their own smarts and self-knowledge.

------
RyJones
Also, this week on This American Life: [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/550/t...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/550/three-miles)

------
dataker
The title has the assumption students should be applying to 'elite schools'.

First, Stanford/MIT/... cannot get as many smart students as needed. If the
top 10% of US students deserved an elite school, that'd be nearly 0.5M
students/year: an impossible number for these institutions.

Secondly, for many students, such education might not be the wisest choice.
Fortunately, I went to a local college and had more time to learn things on my
own. Instead of going to Psychology classes and studying for finals, I
contributed to open source projects and went to hackathons. At Harvard, I
would never do these things on my own.

------
weissadam
It makes a lot more sense once you come to realize that these places aren't
about promoting and driving social mobility, and rather they exist to sustain
existing positions by strengthening and fortifying class divide. (all the
while collecting a nice tithe in the process) In essence, they serve the
wealthy by keeping the wealthy, wealthy. They earn their keep in terms of
donations for the service they provide.

The few token kids who come from the real world who are given a free ride each
year are there just to provide window dressing. Most of them indeed seem out
of place, and often have looks of dejection on their faces.

I have some personal experience with the Ivy League and I was really
unimpressed. Since choosing a school is such a big gamble, especially in an
increasingly competitive world, I don't want to make claims as to what people
should do... but...

I really do like the strong public university systems on the west coast. They
are actually truly diverse places, and while some may be resource lean, I
think they tend to lead to a lot more social mobility.

If you ask me, I think we'd be a whole lot better off if these places weren't
unconditionally lent the credibility they enjoy.

------
andrewchoi
I worked with QuestBridge during college, and they're making strides towards
solving the outreach and awareness problem:
[http://www.questbridge.org/](http://www.questbridge.org/)

------
ElectricFeel
at a NON-Ivy League University, you are unambiguously the best or one of the
best students so you can have more authority & get a good job earlier

~~~
randomnumber53
That's true. I actually read a study recently that talked about how every non-
Ivy League university admits exactly one high-achieving person: YOU!

------
nerdy
"Why Many Smart, Low-Income Students Don't Apply to Elite Schools"

Seems rather self-explanatory, doesn't it? "Elite" schools are typically
outrageously priced so unless you (or your parents) have a bunch of money to
throw around, accumulating Ivy League debt would seem rather stupid.

~~~
dragontamer
You clearly didn't read the article.

~~~
nerdy
You're actually incorrect, I just did not articulate my point fully (in fact,
did a downright bad job) or reread my comment.

When I later reread my original comment my initial reaction was "where did the
rest of it go?"

In this same reply thread morgante guided me to enlightenment on the important
point left out of my original comment, which I was mistaken about anyhow.

