lol how she blatantly ignores the fact that the middle class gets the biggest admissions penalty

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585125)

April 23, 1935

John F. Kennedy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585139)

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Slides.pdf

Tons of XO catnip in here.

Also, someone should post the NYT comments. Basically every single on is a commentor breaking down at how the admission rate is lower for people in the 70%-98% income percentile range (the typical NYT poster).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585188)

On an unrelated note, how is this only a 10 poast thread? This would have gotten 200+ easily 20 years ago. Sadly xoxo is indeed a TTT in steep decline.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585658)

My take these days is that all schools should be required to admit at least 5000 kids a year and at least half need to be from parents who make less than 90th% incomes and have below 90th% net worth for the school to receive federal funds. The schools can game it and make up bullshit lesser degrees that get less of a premium in the job market after college if MC people are dumb enough to fall for it. And schools like Harvard would probably just opt out of federal funds, and that might increase their prestige premium. But the policy intervention needs to be more direct ie directly force more schools to allow more students that don’t have wealthy parents. This study effectively shows that as long as Harvard is so small they will always choose rich kids by and large for rational, purely self-interested reasons. Also now that AA requires more effort to maintain make the cost the schools assume to maintain it even higher/more resource intensive. Also would make more demand for employable majors and profs in those majors and could make the median American professor less of a completely insane and bellicose shitlib.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585915)

lol at this shit authoritarian take

they are private schools. whatever metrics you use to determine how they qualify for federal funds, it shouldn't be durr durr let in the poors! how about this metric--get the federal government out of funding post-high school education altogether. to any extent we are just talking about student loans and the federal government, let that fall to the kids with non-dischargeable debt and let them figure out if it is worth it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46586211)

https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23303#:~:text=R%26D%20Expenditures%2C%20by%20Federal%20Funding,total%20R%26D%20(table%202).

Its fine if private schools want to turn down the money to be prestige whores, but we shouldn’t be giving handouts to private institutions that gatekeep access to the best post grad opportunities and offer them only to children of alumni and wealthy people (See the OP ITT). We are definitely failing to offer the easiest ladder to a middle class income that exists in our current economy to millions of kids from non-wealthy backgrounds. Should this be paired with other policies like investing in training for trades as an alternative to college/via the community college system? Yes definitely. But academia has been given too much power to determine access to the middle class for like 40 years at this point, and they need to be beaten into submission.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46587193)

back up your stupid proposition with some facts. you stated some feel-good nonsense and now you feel like you need to defend it. well, defend it.

show us why your proposal makes sense. show us where <90% income kids contribute, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46595361)

And you obviously want that 0.1% in your school. Not only are they going to donate huge bucks, but the networking there is obvious and is a big benefit for all students.

Even the 1% is hugely beneficial because that means you're getting consulting/banking partners who will take their kid's friend as interns over other schools.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585933)

The networking effect from the 0.1% students almost entirely accrues to other 0.1% students and rarely to those below the 0.1%.

Consulting/banking parents aren't giving out internships to their kids' college buddies. Unless if those buddies have parents who are also in consulting/banking or other connected gigs. But then the college itself becomes immaterial.

This was 20-25 years ago and it's probably worse now. Laymen really, enormously, exaggerate the networking impact of attending an elite college. Being the daughter of a famous journalist or prestigious editor or CNN anchor is what opens doors, not going to a certain college and having a class with the daughter. Having a dad who is c-level at Goldman Sachs opens doors, not being in the same classroom with his offsprings.

HYP and the other elite schools are filled with bright nonentities who figure out how to make themselves successful, even eventually elite, professionals. But they didn't get there through "networking" other kids at their schools. What this article reveals is that the elite colleges love having elite kids from elite families because it cultivates an aura of elitism. That's all to it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46585999)

I was at school in the very late 1990s into early 2000s so it was probably much easier for lower income proles at the Ivies than in the 60s when they were still WASP bastions. At the time there was a significant cohort of middle class financial aid kids from nice middle class families. Seems like this cohort has been decimated in the last 20 years in the quest for "representative diversity." The period starting in the late 1960s and lasting until probably around 2010 was likely peak meritocracy with student bodies much more balanced re income disparities.

I read this sub the other week: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/not-your-fathers-middle-class

Probably the best analysis of the explosion in income divides in the last 20 years. America is breaking apart into haves and have nots with the old middle middle rapidly disappearing as the dominant cultural bloc. This isn't new knowledge, but what this substack points out is the unsaid part - the explosion in size of the upper middle classes not just in wealth but in numbers. Which does help explain what happened to the Ivies and how they retreated back to being classist schools, albeit in a different form.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46589828)

“These two facts motivate our central questions: Do highly selective private colleges amplify the persis- tence of privilege across generations by taking students from high-income families and helping them obtain high-status, high-paying leadership positions? Conversely, to what extent could such colleges diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of society’s leaders by changing their admissions policies?”

These studies are guerilla marketing for elite colleges. They tacitly confirm the idea that the education provided by these elite colleges is functionally different from that offered by others, and this education is the key to becoming affluent and successful. Of course, those of us who actually went to these colleges know the truth: the education itself is indistinguishable from community college, and the true value is the networks you can plug into… if you can convince someone to make the introductions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46586029)

The competitiveness is also turned up to 11, as mega-strivers try to oitdo each other in life, not just in college but in the years after. That pushes everyone to achieve more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46586122)

90%+ of elite Ivy grads will never get anything out of alumni networking and that's being conservative. Otherwise I agree with comments about learning from your peers on campus and for the girls, marrying up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46589867)

You're ignoring that even if the CEO's dad gets the Goldman gig, if you're friends with that kid then he's in your network. So eventually you can hit that person up for a job or at least they can submit your resume and vouch for you.

Also the really rich kids are going to get the capital and time to start new things. And then where are they going to recruit to get new people? At their old college campus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46586116)

I work for megacorp, F200, this isn't how we hire people. Sure, it may be different for boutiques that are less restricted by regulations or corporate policies, but see first sentence. Out of 1500 in a Yale graduating class, how many will get jobs through meaningful alumni networking? Less than 100 for sure.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46589841)

Specifically that athletes are 7% less likely after graduation to work at a "prestigious firm"? Is it because it's dumb black athletes or because they've over-defined prestigious to not include small investment firms or what?

https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Slides.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46586344)

Old research (which was fraudulent, like the Krueger study) used to say it didn't matter if you went to an Ivy or not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46586358)

https://imgur.io/a/6jjK9JN

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5377714&forum_id=2#46587191)