
College Admissions Is a Regressive Tax on Low-Income Students - DesaiAshu
https://medium.com/make-school/college-admissions-is-a-regressive-tax-on-low-income-students-a0c8cf7895
======
jimrhods23
College is really expensive in the US because of the government's attempt to
allow anyone to get in through loans.

Universities know that students have to pay it back no matter what, so they
can keep increasing the costs of classes and various admin fees. They already
get their money up-front, because student most likely paid it through a loan,
and (the university) doesn't have to worry about it being paid back (they
don't have to take on any risk).

We need to get rid of the federal student loan system and make the
Universities the lenders/accountable for the risk of the loan.

This would decrease the costs of classes, because it would be closer to the
true value of what people can afford, not an inflated number that gets passed
along.

It's interesting because the same thing is happening with the medical care
system in the US. If the middleman was removed (insurance companies), costs
would go down.

------
uberman
Before I go on, I what to remind you that the article is talking about _elite
universities_ , institutions that are typically "private" rather than public.
Institutions that typically do not have the mandates to educate the masses
that "public" institutions do. Yes, I know that universities like Harvard and
MIT get lots of public funding both directly and indirectly. I am going to
reference Harvard, but what is true for that institution is true for most
elite private colleges and universities.

 _I am in this space. Getting kids (rich and poor) into the best colleges is
what I do._

Some will say that Harvard is only for the rich (the article certainly implies
as much). It is not. It is for the prepared. In fact, it might be argued that
Harvard is the perfect university for the hyper-prepared poor. If your family
makes less than $65k then you go for free. Full stop. For most families making
less than $150k a year, Harvard is cheaper than most public universities. A
degree from Harvard opens up potentially life altering social economic
opportunities.

I cannot overstate this. _Harvard is not for the rich, Harvard is for the
prepared._ It is absolutely the case that college admissions and life in
general favors the prepared. It is absolutely the case that the "rich" are
better able to prepare their spawn for college and life in general. It is
absolutely the case that this is not fair from the perspective of those unable
(or unwilling) to prepare. However, life is not fundamentally fair.

When institutions get 20x the number of applicants than they need (be it a
college or a company) how should they select from amongst them? The article
suggests that applicants should be selected by evaluating "work ethic" and
"aptitude", but somehow not by "grades" and "testing" as those are "backward-
looking proxies". The article further recommends that students without
demonstrated "work ethic" and "aptitude" should be given what might be
described as an academic internship.

How _exactly_ does a candidate demonstrate work ethic and aptitude if not by
evaluating their past performances and via testing? The idea that a college or
company should offer internships to _all_ interested candidates is financially
and logistically impossible. But, you know what, the education industry
manages to do it anyways.

Want an education internship as an opportunity to prove yourself? Take two
years at a state university or community college. They are typically much
easier to get into and in the case of some community colleges are actually
"open admissions". Once you have proved yourself, finish at Harvard or MIT or
any of the other top rated institutions. That should be no problem right? You
were given two more years of education interning to prove you have what it
takes.

Harvard is a business. A business based on the (justified or unjustified)
reputation of their product. Just like Volvo (a car company with a reputation
for safety) is less likely to take a risk on a new untested design that may or
may not be safe, Harvard is less likely to take a risk on investing in
unproven candidates. They don't know that an unproven, unknown candidate has
what it takes to get past the first year, graduate on time, be a future leader
who will employ their graduates or, be large donor who showers them with
money. These are all factors that Harvard will judge and be judged on.

What they do know is that for every open slot, they have 20 eager candidates
to choose from. Candidates who believe at some level they have qualified for
or have earned the right to attend. Either that, or are just willing to throw
away $75 for the vanity opportunity to say they got rejected.

Of these twenty candidates:

\- Some are the top of their high school class

\- Some have near perfect SAT scores

\- Some play elite level competitive music or sports while maintaining good
grades

\- Some have letters of recommendation from Fortune 500 CEOs, Senators,
Generals and, even past Presidents

\- Some have parents and siblings who were able to make it through the Harvard
system

\- Some have parents who have given back to Harvard via employment
opportunities and donations

Then Harvard has the hopeful candidates who say "I may not have anything that
demonstrates my commitment or aptitude, but I feel I have great potential and
would have been better prepared but..."

If you are hiring for a hyper competitive position in your company, are you
going to look at the stack of resumes and judge your applicant's past
performance? Are you going to interview and test your applicant's knowledge or
are you going to randomly select one and hope based on their enthusiasm and
interest in your company that it all works out for you? That is essentially
what this article is advocating.

