Raj Chetty and associates have combed through a massive dataset and determined that rich kids are likelier to be accepted by elite colleges than students from middle-income families.
In an article by Greg Rosalsky, NPR reported:
Affirmative action for minority kids may now be dead. But a blockbuster new study, released today, finds that, effectively, affirmative action for rich kids is alive and well. They may or may not always do it on purpose, but a group of the most prestigious private colleges in America are handing a massive admissions advantage to rich kids over less affluent kids — even when they have the same SAT scores and academic qualifications.
The study is by Raj Chetty and David J. Deming, of Harvard University, and John N. Friedman, of Brown University. We at Planet Money have already dubbed Raj Chetty the Beyoncé of Economics because of his long list of popular hits in empirical economics. And, let me tell you, this is another ***Flawless classic in his catalog. I mean, not only is the study eye-opening, but Chetty is also kind of sticking his neck out here, by shining a spotlight on the admission practices of his employer, Harvard. But they can’t fire Beyoncé! (He has tenure).
Among a number of other discoveries, the economists find that kids from the richest 1% of American families are more than twice as likely to attend the nation’s most elite private colleges as kids from middle-class families with similar SAT scores. The silver spoon these wealthy kids are born with can, apparently, be used to catapult them past other equally bright, but less privileged kids into some of America’s best colleges….
A student from the richest 1% of American families (from families earning over $611,000 per year) is twice as likely to attend an elite private college as a middle-class student (from a family earning between $83,000-$116,000 per year) with the same academic credentials. The economists find this disparity can only be found at elite private colleges: they find no such advantage for rich kids at America’s flagship public universities, like UC Berkeley or the University of Michigan…
The economists find three factors that give rich kids this huge admissions boost. The first is legacy admission programs. They calculate that 46% of their admissions advantage comes from programs that give them preferential admission due to their parents being alumni.
One defense for these legacy kids might be that they’re smart, hard-working, and ambitious, so they’d be able to get into another Ivy-Plus college if they wanted to. But the economists find these same legacy kids see no advantage when they apply to schools their parents did not go to. “So, in other words, that legacy impact is totally non-transferrable across colleges, which strongly suggests that it’s not that these kids are just kind of stronger applicants in general,” Chetty says. “It’s actually about literally being a legacy at this college.”
The second reason that rich kids get an admissions advantage is athletic recruitment. The economists calculate that 24% of the admission boost for students from the richest 1% of families comes from the fact that they excel at some sort of sport. That may be somewhat surprising, because if you watch pro sports, the stars usually don’t come from privileged backgrounds. The economists are unable to do a sport-by-sport analysis, but, Chetty says, it’s likely that kids are finding a recruitment advantage in expensive, elite sports, such as fencing, tennis, rowing or lacrosse. Elite private colleges, after all, are generally not known for their stellar football or basketball teams.
The last reason rich kids are more likely to be admitted is because they tend to have higher non-academic ratings that make their applications pop. Think extracurricular activities, compelling letters of recommendation, and guidance counselors who help them engineer perfect resumes and personal statements. This explains about 30% of their advantage.
Chetty says the rich-kid advantage in non-academic ratings is almost entirely driven by the fact that they are much more likely to attend elite private high schools. “If you’re coming from an elite private school, you tend to have much higher non-academic ratings,” Chetty says. “Now, of course, kids from high-income families are much more likely to attend these schools.”
The cost of attending Harvard is $80,000. Students who come from families with an income under $85,000 attend cost-free.
A student from a family in the range that Chetty and company studied ($83,000-116,000) would need substantial tuition assistance, as 70% of Harvard students do.
Why would Harvard want students from the top income bracket? The NPR article about Chetty’s study has a throwaway line: rich kids are more likely to pay tuition — and their parents are more likely to give donations and pad their endowments.
This strikes me as a common sense solution to the question of why elite colleges are likelier to admit rich kids than middle-income kids with the same SAT scores. The rich kids pay their full tuition. Somebody has to.

I can hardly wait for the first lawsuits claiming legacy admissions are a form of affirmative action. The SCOTUS ruling, so steeped in race, will probably not apply, but negative publicity is negative publicity. (No AA for the poor, but AA for the rich! Let the signs be made!)
LikeLike
The DOE has already started a civil rights investigation into legacy admissions. (Shocking, only a month after the SFFA decision, the DOE is suddenly concerned about legacy admissions.). The theory isn’t that it’s a form of affirmative action. It’s that legacy admissions have a disparate negative impact on black and Hispanic applicants. Seems silly to me for the reason I state in another comment here. Legacy admissions come at the expense of middle- and upper-middle class students who don’t need an affirmative action bump to compete for admissions. And ending legacy preferences, in the absence of other efforts at racial balancing, will have little to no impact on the racism balance of student bodies.
LikeLike
Not “racism balance,” but “racial balance.” Autocorrect killing me today.
LikeLike
It’s all about the $. Always was.
LikeLike
Harvard, schmarvard. A person is not educated because of college. A person lives a long life and learns as they grow. Why we admire certain colleges over others is a silly thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roy,
I agree that the choices that people make in their lives are the most important factor. Unfortunately a degree from some universities gives one job candidate an advantage over another.
My PhD is from one of the top universities for my field. One of my classmates was hired by a corporation right after applying with out even an interview. The company valued the university so highly.
However, I do feel strongly that the choice of university also has a huge impact on the student. Small teaching focused colleges are supportive of their undergraduate students. Large prestigious research universities brutally weed out students and a number of their students leave the field. I attended both types of institutions as an undergraduate student. I would have never gone for my PhD if I had not had the confidence from my supportive small liberal arts college which does an excellent job of teaching STEM.
Holden Thorp, the head of the AAAS journal Science had an editorial condemning the brutal treatment of undergraduate students at research universities.
LikeLike
At U. Penn’s Homecoming Weekend alumni parents are invited to visit the admission’s office to discuss legacy admissions. I doubt the purpose of the meeting is to drink tea and and eat crumpets with other parents.
LikeLike
Harvard’s endowment is $50.9 Billion. It has 7,000 undergraduates and 14,000 graduate and professional students. That’s about $2.5 million per student.
A conservative 3% withdrawal rate would be expected to maintain the endowment forever. That’s before any new infusions. The 3% withdrawal yields more than $1.5 Billion each year from the endowment alone. Add tuition, fees, research grants, etc.
If you were designing an enterprise to pass your 0.1 percenter status to your progeny, it might look like this.
LikeLike
Thanks for the analysis
LikeLike
Steve,
I totally agree that legacy admission situation is a lot about the fellow students that one’s child might meet and marry.
LikeLike
Good to see that Chetty has moved on from the VAM stupidity.
LikeLike
Yes!
LikeLike
Chetty is similar to Joshua Cowen in what way?
Is John Friedman a Gates’ Impatient Optimist?
Since the study is from Opportunity Insight, an organization funded by Bill Gates, we should be wary as we watch for other stuff from the group that may be of the economic libertarian bent. This could be a report to legitimize the group initially.
LikeLike
Chatty is still using the same methodology that was earlier condemned by regular posters here. Does the validity of the methodology entirely depend on the conclusions reached?
LikeLike
lol of course
LikeLike
No he isn’t! Please explain how VAM uses the same methodology! Is VAM even real? College admissions decisions are real.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Here is a link to the admission paper: https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf
Here are two links to the VAM papers: https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/teachers1.pdf
Click to access teachers2.pdf
What difference in methodology do you detect?
LikeLike
🤣
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist,
What similarities do you detect? You asserted something and you can’t even explain it in words? You linked to two papers and I’m supposed to read your mind?
They could not be more different. I have proven it to you by simply saying the words that they are different! Since you and flerp! have made it clear that is argument enough to convince anyone.
I’m done, having “borrowed” the debating techniques you both seem to appreciate most. Saying that something is true and then launching personal attacks at anyone who disagrees.
LikeLike
Another relevant question to ask may be: What is a methodology?
LikeLike
This quote below is a little misleading. Legacy applicants get a bump at the legacy school, we know that. And sure, they don’t get a bump at a non-legacy school, which puts them on the same footing as other students with similar credentials. But these are very well-credentialed applicants. So while a legacy Harvard applicant won’t get a similar bump at Princeton, or Yale, etc, in the absence of legacy preferences at all elite colleges, the typical legacy Harvard student will probably get admitted to a similar elite college if he doesn’t get admitted to Harvard. My point being, if legacy preferences are eliminated, what will happen is legacy applicants will just be shuffled along the elite schools.
“One defense for these legacy kids might be that they’re smart, hard-working, and ambitious, so they’d be able to get into another Ivy-Plus college if they wanted to. But the economists find these same legacy kids see no advantage when they apply to schools their parents did not go to. “So, in other words, that legacy impact is totally non-transferrable across colleges, which strongly suggests that it’s not that these kids are just kind of stronger applicants in general,” Chetty says. “It’s actually about literally being a legacy at this college.””
LikeLike
Shuffled among
LikeLike
“So while a legacy Harvard applicant won’t get a similar bump at Princeton, or Yale, etc, in the absence of legacy preferences at all elite colleges, the typical legacy Harvard student will probably get admitted to a similar elite college if he doesn’t get admitted to Harvard.”
The study showed that this is true ONLY if that typical legacy student attends an elite private school and has the “affirmative action for the rich” benefit of those elite universities putting extra weight on the recommendations of the paid employees of that private school.
From the NYT:
“The biggest contributor was that admissions committees gave higher scores to students from private, nonreligious high schools. They were twice as likely to be admitted as similar students — those with the same SAT scores, race, gender and parental income — from public schools in high-income neighborhoods. A major factor was recommendations from guidance counselors and teachers at private high schools……..
“Recommendation letters from private school counselors are notoriously flowery, he said, and the counselors call admissions officers about certain students….”
As you probably know, every high scoring public school student – including students at Stuy – who doesn’t get admitted to Harvard doesn’t get admitted to a similarly elite college. But no doubt almost every elite private school student does.
In fact, the study and news coverage fudge what the meaning of “top academically” means. A 1500 SAT (or even 1450) or 33 GRE is very likely enough to put an elite private school kid in the same basket with an 1550 SAT, 35 ACT public school student – the admissions committee gives them all the highest academic score. Then the private school kid with the lower SAT then gets the higher non-academic score based on the counselor/teachers recommendations.
Given that admissions committees know that public school students have an enormous disadvantage here, the fact that they continue to grant this advantage to private school students is intentional. Affirmative action not just for the affluent, but for the affluent who attend elite private schools.
I also believe a closer look at the legacy admissions boost will show that legacies from elite private schools get more of a boost than legacies from public schools, even when the legacies from public schools have higher test scores. I always find it the height of hypocrisy when the people who benefit from affirmative action for the rich say that their kid is “qualified” to attend the elite school, thus bypassing the discussion of all the MORE qualified students who got rejected. But then turn around and whine that a beneficiary of affirmative action based on race cannot just be “qualified” but must be MORE qualified than every white and Asian applicant to be admitted.
The good news is that parents willing to shell out $40,000+ per year for 13 or 7 or “only” 4 years for a private school are getting their money’s worth because their kid will definitely have a significant advantage in admissions over similarly high scoring public school students, even those who score even higher than the private school students. And that’s the case regardless of their ethnic background, race, or legacy status.
LikeLike
^^^in other words, it is only when talking about affirmative action for rich private school students that “well-credentialed” is enough to justify why they are admitted over higher scoring applicants.
An elite private school only has to be “well-credentialed” to get admitted. A Black student must be “better than all other applicants” or their admissions must be challenged.
LikeLike
I don’t understand this comment. Maybe make it shorter?
LikeLike
I thought I understood this comment to be about the boost that applicants who attend elite “feeder” private schools get, but I lost the thread when you started talking about race and how black applicants have to be better than all other applicants.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
You used the term “well-qualified” to support your contention that students admitted via legacy admissions would be admitted to a different elite private school without legacy status.
What does “well-qualified” have to do with it? Asian students sued because they were MORE qualified. The question of whether or not students admitted via affirmative action were “qualified” to attend was not relevant. If it was, then all affirmative admits who score higher than the lowest scoring white student admitted are “qualified”.
Many public school students are “well-qualified”. Surely you know that still gives them a very small chance of admission to elite schools. So why are you certain that legacy applicants would get in?
“well-qualified”, “qualified” are terms that are only used for rich kids.
Are you really going to argue that students admitted via affirmative action were NOT qualified? What is this mysterious cut off that makes a student “qualified” versus “not qualified”? Their race? parent income?
LikeLike
“You used the term “well-qualified” to support your contention that students admitted via legacy admissions would be admitted to a different elite private school without legacy status.”
I mean that these students generally have top-notch SAT scores, top-notch grades, and super-top-notch extracurricular factors, all in line with the strongest applicants that elite schools consider. That shouldn’t be surprising–these are students with every advantage, who have at least one parent who graduated from Harvard (in this example) and many of whom are from multi-generational Harvard families, who have generally gotten excellent K-12 educations. “Well-qualified” understates the point.
LikeLike
I should say that one wrinkle is the legacy athletes — their academic qualifications are probably lower than the legacy non-athletes.
LikeLike
Look, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I have a fancy degree (actually I have three! look at me!) from a fancy school, but I don’t really care much whether my still-in-high-school kid goes to that school. In fact I’d prefer he didn’t. So whatever, let’s get rid of legacy admissions. Then we’ll see what happens. I’m telling you, those legacy applicants will just get dispersed among all the other top schools. A game of musical chairs for people whose parents went to elite universities.
LikeLike
“well-qualified” hides their privilege. It’s a vague term where a student who has taken a standardized test multiple times (sometimes with extra time) with many hours of private tutoring finally gets a 1450 or 1500 score and is considered “well-qualified” while an economically disadvantaged student of color is considered “unqualified” if they “only” get a 1400.
Do you think all Stuy and Bronx Science students who are “well-qualified” get into the most elite colleges? The median SAT and ACT scores at elite private high schools indicates that half the students fall below that median and yet the percentage going to the elite colleges that reject 90% of the high scoring public school students is very high.
If you were advocating for test scores to be equally applied to elite private school students and affluent public school students, I support you. I think many more high scoring students from public schools would be admitted over private school students if test scores were given much more weight, instead of using a term like “well-qualified” instead of MOST qualified based on their test score.
LikeLike
FLERP!, I do think you insult many Stuy and Bronx Science students by suggesting that their grades and test scores are not equally “top notch” to those private school students you cite. Perhaps even better.
Despite that, the guidance counselors are not reassuring them that their admissions to an elite college is practically guaranteed, which is what you were implying about private school legacy students if they didn’t have the legacy advantage.
LikeLike
You’re kind of ranting all over the place and I don’t know what you want me to say. My point is a limited one–that ending legacy admissions will have the effect of dispersing legacy applicants among other top schools, without much change in the demographics of those schools. If you disagree, that’s fine.
You’re correct that the “elite” private schools (not all private schools) have a huge advantage over public schools and that’s not fair. We don’t disagree about that. My sense from talking to admissions officers and guidance counselors is that this is because universities have loose “caps” on the number of students they will take from a certain high school, and the caps are higher on the elite private schools. We went through this with my daughter at Stuy. Harvard, Yale, etc., just don’t take many students from the specialized high schools. Some top universities take almost no students from them. It’s not fair, I agree. Part of it, quite frankly and very disgustingly, is that the students are Asian.
But . . . just because it’s unfair doesn’t mean that the students from these elite private schools who are getting into Harvard et al. are a bunch of dodos. The stereotype is George W. Bush, but as a general rule, they have extremely strong academic qualifications.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
“just because it’s unfair doesn’t mean that the students admitted via affirmative who are getting into Harvard et al. are a bunch of dodos. The stereotype is xxxxx, but as a general rule, they have extremely strong academic qualifications.”
See your double standard? Or perhaps you believe students admitted via affirmative action ARE “a bunch of dodos”.
Shouldn’t you be saying that as a general rule, students from elite private schools have significantly SUPERIOR qualifications than all the Stuy students and Bronx Science students who are rejected?
And I have no idea why you would cite the race of those students. The study showed that Asian students from elite private schools had the same advantage.
But are you admitting you are wrong that legacy students would be admitted without the legacy preference, since you clearly understand that extremely well-qualified public school students are rejected at very high rates?
LikeLike
I can’t follow your arguments here, they seem to be all over the place.
I’ve got some stuff to do, I cede the floor to you.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
Yes, I noticed that you can never follow my arguments whenever you can’t defend your comments.
Your comment presents as if it was a FACT that those legacy students would OF COURSE be admitted to a different elite school because they are “well-qualified”. Even though you have already acknowledged that Stuy and Bronx Science kids who are equally well-qualified have very small chances of admissions at those schools.
It’s a conundrum for you since you know it would be the height of incompetence for a college counselor at Stuy or Bronx Science to assure students and parents that all the “well-qualified” seniors applying to college will be dispersed among the most elite colleges.
You obviously understand that “well-qualified” students are still far more likely to be rejected than admitted. So those legacy students will be far more likely to be rejected than admitted regardless of being “well-qualfied”.
Your comment about those legacy students simply being dispersed throughout other elite colleges has no basis in fact. Why not just admit you were wrong when you said that would certainly be the result?
LikeLike
“Yes, I noticed that you can never follow my arguments whenever you can’t defend your comments.”
You lost me awhile back, too.
LikeLike
What happened to the boost rich kids get from athletic and extracurricular endeavors?
LikeLike
?
I’m just addressing the legacy portion of the analysis.
LikeLike
That boost goes to private school rich students more than public school rich students for non-athletic extracurricular endeavors.
Participation in athletics for a “good” athlete isn’t much of a boost, but if the student is such a superb athlete that they achieve the coveted “athletic recruit” category, that is a huge boost.
Recent athletic recruit scandals at Harvard (fencing) and U Penn (basketball) and Yale (tennis) and Stanford (sailing) showed that parents of decent athletes who donated generously to athletic departments (or bought coaches’ homes for inflated prices) were given a huge boost in admissions despite those students not being “the best”. They got the “recruit status” advantage over better athletes who applied.
It did make me wonder how this has probably gone on for years and years in the prep school sports like squash, lacrosse, golf, tennis, sailing that aren’t revenue-producing except when parents generously donate to the athletic team. While some students are truly superb athletes, it would not surprise me if there were always one or two others who were okay but not superb athletes who got admitted over better athletes based on donations to the athletics department. Which seems to be legal as long as the money goes to the athletics department and not directly to the coach.
Privileged students only have to be “well-qualified” to be admitted, while students who aren’t privileged have to be “superior to all other applicants”. It’s a double standard.
LikeLike
The press/media coverage of this has been shallow. Of the news sources I have consulted, not one has pointed out that it is much less difficult to get in as a transfer student sophomore or junior year.
LikeLike
This quote below is a very important point, and it’s one that opponents of standardized tests and proponents of “holistic” admissions never seem to grasp. The less objective admissions criteria become, the more the advantage swings to wealthy applicants. This will be rampant at schools that don’t consider the SAT/ACT.
“The last reason rich kids are more likely to be admitted is because they tend to have higher non-academic ratings that make their applications pop. Think extracurricular activities, compelling letters of recommendation, and guidance counselors who help them engineer perfect resumes and personal statements. This explains about 30% of their advantage.”
LikeLike
It is already rampant. And it isn’t just being rich. It is being rich and going to a private school, as the study demonstrated.
LikeLike
However you want to describe the current state of affairs, the point is it will get a lot worse.
LikeLike
How will it get worse? Standardized tests already mean very little for privileged private school students who just have to his some baseline score, not “outscore all Asian applicants”.
Right now, standardized tests are mis-used only to compare affluent public school students to economically disadvantaged public school students for the disproportionately small number of seats left over after all the private school students get their disproportionately huge percentage of seats.
Might as well stop the fraud.
It would make sense to use standardized test scores to compare academically strong affluent and middle class public school students to academically strong privileged private school students. But instead we have the farce of using them to compare affluent public school students to disadvantaged public school students who are fighting over whatever seats are left after privileged private school students take their outsize share.
Elite colleges buy into the myth that standardized tests and AP exam scores aren’t relevant when comparing affluent public school and private school students, throwing all students into the same bucket if they hit a “well-qualified” mark and then (purely coincidentally) finding that elite private school students are simply so much more deserving of admissions based on non-academic scores from their teacher and guidance counselor recommendations.
So what do you think will change if there are no standardized tests? How many of the disproportionately small number of seats for public school students go to the affluent versus the disadvantaged?
LikeLike
It will get worse because the non-objective stuff like extracurriculars, letters of recommendation, personal statements all receive more weight in a system that doesn’t include test scores. And those are the things where wealth and privilege matter most.
Again:
“The last reason rich kids are more likely to be admitted is because they tend to have higher non-academic ratings that make their applications pop. Think extracurricular activities, compelling letters of recommendation, and guidance counselors who help them engineer perfect resumes and personal statements. This explains about 30% of their advantage.”
LikeLike
FLERP!,
You left out that advantage only applies to PRIVATE school rich kids.
That, to me, was the most incriminating part of the study. It wasn’t affluence alone, because affluent students from public schools did NOT have this advantage. It was attending a private school.
So I don’t understand the relevance. Standardized test scores are already irrelevant for private school students when comparing them to public school students from the same backgrounds.
It’s rather silly to compare affluent public school students in well-funded public schools to very poor students in underfunded public school students and say that standardized tests are important.
But it would certainly make sense to compare affluent public school students with affluent private school students and say that standardized test scores must be the deciding factor. Instead, our current system – that you seem to want to keep – says that the test scores matter very little as long as the private school students hit some baseline after tutoring and taking it multiple times and being more likely to get extra time..
LikeLike
I think the kind of “rich students” that are at issue in this study are generally the kind of students who are going to be going to fancy private schools.
What portion of the study makes the point you’re making, i.e. that the benefits of being extremely wealthy only accrue to students at private schools, and not to those at public schools? It sort of makes sense intuitively but I haven’t seen the evidence.
LikeLike
“the benefits of being extremely wealthy only accrue to students at private schools, and not to those at public schools? It sort of makes sense intuitively but I haven’t seen the evidence.”
Most people suspected this, but the study had the data:
The biggest contributor was that admissions committees gave higher scores to students from private, nonreligious high schools. They were twice as likely to be admitted as similar students — those with the same SAT scores, race, gender and parental income — from public schools in high-income neighborhoods. A major factor was recommendations from guidance counselors and teachers at private high schools.”
LikeLike
FLERP!,
It’s hard to follow your arguments as they are all over the place and seem to often contradict. Do I have this right?
Ditching legacy preferences is good.
Ditching legacy preferences will not impact demographics.
Ditching legacy preferences will not impact demographics because legacy students will be dispersed among other elite schools due to their all being “well-qualified” and certain to be admitted to one of those elite schools.
“Well-qualified” students from public schools like Stuy have a hard time getting admitted to elite schools.
Legacy students who don’t get a legacy advantage from their parents’ school once legacy advantage is ended will simply be dispersed among other elite schools due to them all being “well-qualified”.
“Well-qualified” students from Stuy have a hard time getting into elite schools, but well-qualified students who no longer have legacy preference will definitely get into an elite school due to them being “well-qualified.”
We must keep the SAT because “well-qualified” students like those from Stuy who don’t get into elite schools will be at a disadvantage that they don’t have now because they also don’t get into elite schools unless they are “well-qualified” legacies, in which case they would have no trouble getting into any elite school because they are “well-qualified” and don’t need the legacy advantage to get into an elite school.
It’s so confusing, but your assertion that well-qualified legacy students don’t need the legacy advantage to get into elite schools really insults the students at Stuy and Bx Sci who get rejected from those schools all the time.
But I love your optimism that the real issue is keeping the SAT to keep things “fair” for well-qualified students!
LikeLike
You had most of that right, but toward the end you started injecting your own voice and things fell apart.
Here’s an exercise: State your argument in one sentence. And don’t refer to anyone else in that sentence. (E.G., don’t write: “FLERP! is a hypocrite because . . . .”). If you can do that, I might be able to tell what you’re arguing.
Mine: Ditching legacy preferences is a good idea but I doubt it would have much impact on the demographics of elite universities.
LikeLike
FLERP! at 10:37am:
“Legacy applicants get a bump at the legacy school, we know that. And sure, they don’t get a bump at a non-legacy school, which puts them on the same footing as other students with similar credentials. But these are very well-credentialed applicants. So while a legacy Harvard applicant won’t get a similar bump at Princeton, or Yale, etc, in the absence of legacy preferences at all elite colleges, the typical legacy Harvard student will probably get admitted to a similar elite college if he doesn’t get admitted to Harvard. My point being, if legacy preferences are eliminated, what will happen is legacy applicants will just be shuffled along the elite schools.”
Still stand by that statement, FLERP!? Because if you are now retracting that you said that legacy students don’t need the legacy bump because you know they would be admitted to elite schools anyway, then there’s no need to continue this debate.
LikeLike
FLERP!: “Mine: Ditching legacy preferences is a good idea but I doubt it would have much impact on the demographics of elite universities.”
NYCPSP: Why wouldn’t it have any impact?
FLERP!: “if legacy preferences are eliminated, what will happen is legacy applicants will just be shuffled along the elite schools.”
NYCPSP: But very well-qualified public school students are often rejected from those elite schools, so why are you certain that students without legacy preferences would definitely get in?
FLERP! you are giving a circular argument and claiming that you already explained why eliminating legacy preferences won’t have an impact, when you haven’t.
Sad. And insulting me once again instead of explaining why you are so certain that legacy students will be admitted to elite schools without legacy preferences. I guess it’s because they are “well-qualified” just like the public school students who get rejected? Sorry, but not convincing.
LikeLike
Yes, for God’s sake, I stand by the statement. Legacy applicants get a legacy bump at the legacy university. They don’t get a legacy bump at non-legacy universities. Perhaps some, or many, Harvard legacy applicants don’t need a bump to get into Harvard. Some, or perhaps many, do need that bump to get into Harvard. But by and large, most of those legacy applicants probably have credentials that are good enough to get them into one of 10 or 15 other “elite” universities. Maybe not all of those universities, and maybe just one of those universities, but that’s all it takes. And that’s the process by which legacy admits would get shuffled around among elite universities if legacy preferences were ended.
You should have tried my exercise. I think it would help you.
LikeLike
Ultimately, NYCPSP, this is a factual question. It’s also hypothetical so to some extent it’s unknowable because the answer exists only in a counter-factual world, but the predicates for the hypothetical are knowable. The factual question is, what are the academic credentials of legacy applicants? I have my best guess, but I don’t actually know it for a fact. So you could say I’m engaging in conjecture, and that would be true. But it seems you also don’t know the facts. So you’re engaging in conjecture, too. Fair enough, but I like my reasoning, and I can’t really see yours.
LikeLike
One correction: I wrote “What are the academic credentials of legacy applicants?” I should have written: “What are the academic credentials of legacy admits?”
LikeLike
FLERP! says:
“But by and large, most of those legacy applicants probably have credentials that are good enough to get them into one of 10 or 15 other “elite” universities. Maybe not all of those universities, and maybe just one of those universities, but that’s all it takes. And that’s the process by which legacy admits would get shuffled around among elite universities if legacy preferences were ended.”
By and large most of the Stuy and Bronx Science applicants (and applicants from affluent suburban public schools) probably have credentials that are good enough to get them into one of 10 or 15 other “elite” universities. Maybe not all of those universities, and maybe just one of those universities, but that’s all it takes.
That isn’t the advice that public school college counselors at those public schools tell their academically strong students. They tell them that it is a roll of the die EVEN FOR WELL-QUALIFIED students. But FLERP!, you keep saying it isn’t, insisting that well-qualified legacy students are very likely to be admitted without the legacy preference, when the study we are discussing showed that simply wasn’t true.
I quote from the study:
“Legacy students from families in the top 1% are 5 times as likely to be admitted as the average applicant with similar test scores, demographic characteristics, and admissions office ratings; legacy students from families below the 90th percentile are 3 times as likely to be admitted as peers with comparable credentials. The legacy advantage does not transfer across colleges. The children of alumni of a given Ivy-Plus college have no higher chance of being admitted to other Ivy-Plus colleges (conditional on their other credentials), indicating that legacy status does not simply proxy for other unobservable credentials that lead to higher admissions rates.”
FLERP!, you are free to claim better knowledge than Raj Chetty and the other authors, but given your own knowledge of how hard it is for “well-qualified” students to be admitted to elite colleges, it is surprising you are then contradicting yourself and presenting it as a done deal for legacy students. Why not just admit that it would be as hard for those students as it was for any well-qualified student from an excellent public school?
You haven’t explained why you keep saying it is practically guaranteed that a “well-qualified” legacy student without legacy preference would still be admitted to an elite college, when you have acknowledged that it is quite difficult for most “well-qualified” students from top performing public schools to be admitted.
LikeLike
FLERP! says:
” I wrote “What are the academic credentials of legacy applicants?” I should have written: “What are the academic credentials of legacy admits?”
You should have written “are the academic credentials of legacy admits superior to the academic credentials of all the students at Stuy and Bronx Science who were rejected?”
Isn’t that your argument against affirmative action? That supposedly more academically deserving students could be taking that spot?
Legacy admits are qualified. Recruited athletes are qualified. Affirmative action admits are qualified. I am happy to stipulate that all of them are “qualified” to be admitted. And I challenge you to do the same.
But the underlying innuendo in your comments has always been that being qualified is enough for legacy admits and not enough for affirmative action admits, because you profess to be very concerned about the MORE qualified middle class students who get rejected.
Being well-qualified doesn’t guarantee a public school applicant admission to an elite college. You have both acknowledged that fact and contradicted it at the same time. The report contradicts your theories that a legacy admit will certainly be admitted to an elite school without legacy preference. You might be able to convince me that your theories are plausible, but not by simply repeating that they are yours, so they should be taken seriously even if the report contradicts them.
LikeLike
I almost am convinced that you will argue with Flerp no matter what he says. He has made no claim to ultimate “rightness” here. As far as I am concerned, you are just muddying the waters with layer upon layer of additional considerations you think he should address. He has his opinions; you have yours. He has no obligation to address all of your never ending concerns to your satisfaction.
LikeLike
Well, we now know the answer to the factual question.
“New data shows that at elite private colleges, the children of alumni, known as legacies, are in fact slightly more qualified than typical applicants, as judged by admissions offices. Even if their legacy status weren’t considered, they would still be about 33 percent more likely to be admitted than applicants with the same test scores, based on all their other qualifications, demographic characteristics and parents’ income and education, according to an analysis conducted by Opportunity Insights, a research group at Harvard.
Researchers said that was unsurprising, given that these students grow up in more educated families. Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports, and offer insight into what the college is looking for.”
LikeLike
FLERP!
So will you retract your statement now that you know that more than 2/3 of the applicants who got in via a legacy boost would NOT get into another elite university?
Imagine all those seats going to middle class students instead?
LikeLike
“Their parents may be more able to invest in their educations, pay for things like private schools or exclusive sports…”
Cutting out the legacy privilege would free up 2/3 of the legacy admit seats in elite universities. Cutting out the nonsensical advantage admissions officers give to private school students over public school students by giving them higher scores for non-academic reasons would free up more of those seats. And cutting out seats for students who play exclusive sports would free up even more of those seats.
Stopping affirmative action for under represented minorities would only free up a small percentage of seats for the students you believe are unfairly disadvantaged, FLERP!, but ending affirmative action for rich private school students, especially when they have a parent who graduated from that school, would free up a much higher percentage of seats.
So I don’t understand why you aren’t also saying that ending affirmative action will have very little impact. It’s the same double standard criticized in the CREDO report, where CREDO claimed that a difference in scores when the public schools had better scores was insignificant, but then when charter schools had better scores, that very same difference in scores was very significant. When folks do that, you know they aren’t interested in honest discussion of good policy, they are just pushing an agenda.
You linked to an article and yet I still have no idea whether you are still standing by your contention that the students who get in via legacy will all be dispersed at other elite schools or not. Are you retracting it because now you see that the study showed they admission rate would be 11% instead of 37%? Or are you saying that supports your previous assertion that they’d all get in?
LikeLike
“So will you retract your statement now that you know that more than 2/3 of the applicants who got in via a legacy boost would NOT get into another elite university”
That’s not what the excerpt I pasted says.
I wanted to give you that info but I’m not going to spend an hour here again going back and forth with someone who doesn’t understand what “33% more likely” means. It’s beyond pointless.
LikeLike
FLERP! says:
“Well, we now know the answer to the factual question.”
You mean now YOU know because that information you cut and pasted was in the original report and in some news coverage. I kept citing it, and you kept replying that you had your own (uninformed) opinion.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
You are correct that you will never convince me that there is no significant difference between a legacy admit rate of 37% and a legacy admit rate of 11% and the reason you feel so confident lecturing me about how there is no difference between an 11% legacy admit rate and a 37% legacy admit rate is because legacies have a 33% percent more likelihood of getting admitting, so therefore all of them will be dispersed at other elite schools.
Your arguments defy basic math. Keep telling me that your assertion that all legacies will end up at other elite schools has been “proven” by that article and I will keep telling you that I don’t think that chart means what you think it means. Inconceivable. Flerp! says all legacy admits simply will be dispersed to other elite schools and flerp! says the chart proves it!
LikeLike
FLERP! the math teacher:
Class, I would like to inform you that when I say that a student is 33% more likely than the average student to be admitted to a school without legacy preference, that is absolute proof that there is no difference between a 37% admit rate for legacies and an 11% admit rate.
This is why there is an excellent argument that high school seniors who aren’t planning to go into engineering or math should be taking statistics, not calculus.
LikeLike
speduktr, it’s the same way every single time. Everything spins outward and outward. The fault is mine for engaging. I have terrible self-control.
LikeLike
FLERP, practice self control.
LikeLike
speduktr,
I have no idea why you decided to insert yourself into this conversation, but I find your comment unreasonable and unpersuasive. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. FLERP! can have any opinion he/she wants — I don’t really care what FLERP!’s opinion is, I just care whether the facts he/she cites to support that opinion are accurate.
A person is entitled to their opinion to oppose covid vaccines. They aren’t entitled to say that they oppose the covid vaccine because almost all people who died of covid were vaccinated without being challenged on that misinformation. And you aren’t entitled to demand silence from those trying to correct misinformation because “He has his opinions; you have yours.” That kind of “both siderism” has been a very real danger to our democracy and I am surprised to see you promoting it.
FLERP! – or anyone else – is entitled to be fine with legacy preferences if he/she has personal reasons for not being at all bothered by legacy preferences. FLERP! – or anyone else – is entitled to be fine with admissions committees giving well-qualified private school students higher non-academic ratings than well-qualified public school students, because private school teachers and guidance counselors supposedly think very highly of their well-qualified students while public school teachers and guidance counselors supposedly don’t think their own equally well-qualified students are anything special.
But FLERP! isn’t entitled to cite false facts to support his/her opinion. “if legacy preferences are eliminated, what will happen is legacy applicants will just be shuffled along the elite schools.” “I’m telling you, those legacy applicants will just get dispersed among all the other top schools.”
This entire study is about the impact those kind of preferences have in admission to elite colleges. And the study found that those kind of preferences had a significant impact: “eliminating the admissions practices that benefit students from high-income families would increase socioeconomic diversity by a magnitude comparable to the effect of racial preferences on racial diversity.”
When FLERP! says “eliminating legacy preferences ending legacy admissions will have the effect of dispersing legacy applicants among other top schools, without much change in the demographics of those schools”, he/she directly contradicts the findings of the study. The study didn’t find that those students all would be dispersed to other elite schools – it found that most of the legacy admits would be unlikely to get in since their admission rate would drop from 37% to 11%.
flerp! is entitled to his/her opinion that ditching legacy preferences won’t change demographics, but he isn’t entitled to say ditching legacy preferences won’t change demographics because those legacy students will simply be admitted to another elite school. This study found that some will, but most won’t. I have no idea why flerp! keeps pushing that false narrative. And I have no idea why speduktr objects to my pointing out that it is false, and calls the results of this study simply an “opinion”.
That both siderism in which both fact and opinion are presented as “opinion” is really bad. speduktr, I hope you understand the danger here. I can say I am against teachers’ unions – that’s an opinion. But if I say I am against teachers unions because the union protects pedophile teachers who sexually abuse their young students and because of unions, sexually abusing pedophile teachers remain in classrooms to abuse many more students, that isn’t just an opinion that union supporters must agree is just as valid as their own “opinion” that unions don’t allow sexually abusing teachers to continue to abuse their students.
If you don’t get this, I don’t even know why I am on this blog anymore. If public school teachers don’t want supporters like me, that’s fine. I am not interested in “both siderism”, I am interested in honest debate where those using wrong facts to support their opinion are corrected. If this blog wants wrong facts to be presented as simply an “opinion” that has equal weight with the truth, that’s fine – just don’t whine when public schools are victimized by that normalization of something that is a danger to democracy.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that you considered your comments on this blog a private conversation. My apologies. I will avoid “inserting” myself into your realm again. If you truly care about “truth,” you could be a lot more careful about how you present your opinions, which more often than not I find worth hearing.
LikeLike
The discussion about legacy admissions is hardly akin to a discussion on anti-vaxism or pedophile teachers. Flerp said I believe multiple times that he was stating his opinion, NOT FACTS. It is not worthy of a “both sideism” label. I want to understand you, but when you get going, I find it impossible.
LikeLike
speduktr,
I welcome your opinions and if you have an opinion on legacy preferences and agree with flerp! that eliminating them won’t change anything, I am eager to hear why you think so.
But if your opinion is based on the same false fact that flerp! cites — that virtually all legacy admits would get into an elite college without the legacy boost – then I will also challenge you with the research of this study. The research in this study says they will not. Their admission rate drops from 37% to 11%.
You and flerp! are welcome to keep insisting that you know that virtually all legacies would get into elite colleges without the boost, but you aren’t welcome to tell me to shut up because you don’t like me citing the facts in a study that contradict the false facts you offer to support your opinion. I’m sorry I am not going to say “you have your opinion, I have mine” because I am not giving my “opinion”. I am pointing out that this study directly contradicts the argument you used to support your opinion.
You didn’t insert yourself to talk about your own view of legacy preferences. You inserted yourself to gratuitously criticize me for pointing out that flerp!’s argument to support his/her opinion was absolutely false. Why did that bother you so much? Do you prefer that people who cite false “facts” to support their opinions (like vaccines cause covid deaths) not be challenged?
flerp! can post here a dozen times that virtually all students who benefit from the boost given to them in elite college admissions because they are legacies will absolutely be admitted to an elite school if legacy boosts are eliminated, because those students are so outstanding anyway. But this study showed it wasn’t true. So when flerp! offers a “fact” that is easily contradicted by this study, I am going to correct it. It honestly mystifies me why flerp! can’t just say he/she misunderstood the study, because he read one paragraph without reading the next paragraph of the study. Without legacy boosts, legacies are significantly less likely to be admitted.
You may think this is relatively unimportant. But the mantra you cited “He has his opinions; you have yours” has debased our democracy. Let’s agree to disagree about whether Joe Biden and Democrats stole the 2020 election via rampant voter fraud and corrupt election officials. We just have different opinions and both are equally valid. Let’s agree to disagree about whether sexually abusing union teachers are running rampant in schools knowing the union always protects them. We just have different opinions and both are equally valid. Let’s agree to disagree about whether Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was to keep Ukranian people safe from Nazis. We just have different opinions and both are equally valid. That gives legitimacy to untruths. Especially when those trying to amplify the truth are told to shut up and just agree to disagree.
Again, everyone has a right to their opinion to support Putin’s invasion or oppose teachers unions or hate Biden. But there IS something wrong with justifying that opinion with falsehoods.
In my humble “opinion”, there have been a lot of falsehoods and misinformation used to undermine public schools and push the narrative that charter schools and non-union teachers are better. Because the media simply treats the falsehoods used to promote charter schools and the actual facts cited by public school supporters as if both are equally valid opinions. I come to this blog because Diane Ravitch does an amazing job using facts that contradict the false narratives of privatizers and especially contradict the so-called “evidence” privatizers cite to support their pro-charter stance.
She doesn’t just say “anti-public school folks have their opinion and I have mine.” Too many education writers do that, and it has been extremely harmful to public schools.
When flerp! says the most privileged students who benefit from legacy boosts will virtually all be admitted to an elite school anyway (albeit perhaps a different one than their parents went to) that contradicts what this study found. I’m not offering an “opinion”, I am pointing out that the study found that flerp!’s argument supporting his opinion wasn’t true.
I am tired of this and probably I need a break from this blog. If the false arguments that folks use to support their opinions are now not allowed to be challenged, why bother? I respect folks like Carol Burris and Diane Ravitch who work hard to demonstrate why the so-called “facts” supporting the privatizers’ “opinions” are not true. I have always believed it is very important to hold people to a modicum of truth to justify their “opinions”. Not simply say that “they have their opinion and I have mine.”
LikeLike
Just what does the 2020 election, Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine or teacher pedophiles have to do with legacy admissions at elite colleges?! I have a feeling you are taking this far more seriously than Flerp ever intended to be a rather casual comment. I see you as splitting hairs. The reality is that most legacy applicants will land softly at other topnotch schools. We can quibble over statistical probabilities/number guesses and the precision of word choices. I am suggesting that you step back and consider why their are so few voices contributing to this discussion. I’m done, so you can have the last word.
LikeLike
“The reality is that most legacy applicants will land softly at other topnotch schools.” That statement is not supported by the study that is the subject of this entire blog entry. It’s not supported by anything at all. It’s your “opinion” and when I point to the study that is the subject of this blog post — the study that contradicts your “opinion”, you tell me that’s simply MY “opinion”. It’s not my opinion – it is the findings of the study.
I have defended public schools for a long time, but I think I am done. The reality is that all students will land softly at other schools and why not give them a choice? Let’s not split hairs or quibble over statistical probabilities/numbers guesses and the precision of word choices of those who support privatizing education. I am suggesting you step back and consider why there are so few voices or politicians defending public schools. Maybe speduktr can explain that there is too much “quibbling” when people just “know” that there will be a soft landing for students if we just continue to support more charters.
Who knows, maybe if I stop defending public schools and start repeating the valid opinions of charter supporters about how superior charter schools are, flerp! will become a strong defender of public schools just to be contrary. flerp! will praise public schools for closing during covid, and praise teachers unions for looking out for the interests of students first. I will leave you all to it as I know the last thing you need is another public school supporter who believes that opinions that are supported by misinformation should be discredited, not validated.
LikeLike
What you said.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
I think you are correct. Recall that riskiest and most difficult part of the USC admissions scandal was having substitutes take the SAT exam for the candidate. No worries about that now.
LikeLike
Yep. A world where Harvard ditches the SAT is the best possible world for mediocre children of the very wealthy, and the worst possible world for the exceptionally bright children of the middle class.
LikeLike
Ironically, those parents got more of a pass by the judicial system than the parents who were just fools!
I always thought it was unconscionable that any parent could have someone take the SAT exam for their kid! That is so obviously wrong! I would absolutely throw the book at those parents.
I had a lot more sympathy for the gullible parents who trusted a respected college advisor recommended by many famous people (Golfer Phil Mickelson used Rick Singer for all 3 children and gave testimonials but then was “shocked” to hear that exaggerated resumes and donations to athletic departments were used – by other parents I guess, but not him). This guy told them to give a donation here or to exaggerate an athletic resume there and they believed him when he said that making donations to the right people or exaggerating accomplishments was common. Of course it is, but there was an invisible line that Singer had these parents cross that they didn’t realize they were crossing. They donated in the “wrong” way when it is very likely they could have just donated in the right way and had their kid admitted! But donating in the “wrong” way actually helped enrich Rick Singer personally so he scared those parents into believing that this was the only way to do it. Those kids didn’t falsify their academic record or cheat on their SATs. They unnecessarily exaggerated their non-academic record, when having a celebrity parent and their own actual accomplishments would have resulted in them being admitted, especially with a “legal” donation. But the “expert” recommended by Phil Mickelson himself convinced them to exaggerate. But he couldn’t convince them to cheat on their kids’ ACADEMIC record, which I thought made them much more sympathetic. And also convinced me that their kids academic record meant that they were “qualified” for the schools that they cheated to get into because a respected college advisor told them this is how it’s done.
LikeLike
FLERP! says:
“A world where Harvard ditches the SAT is the best possible world for mediocre children of the very wealthy, and the worst possible world for the exceptionally bright children of the middle class.”
Did you read the study? The exceptionally bright children of the middle class are the ones already in that worst possible world. Which is why there are so few of them in elite schools.
You are still advocating for keeping the current system, which pits exceptionally bright children of the middle class against exceptionally disadvantaged students who are also very bright but might have lower SAT scores.
LikeLike
I guess I have to keep repeating myself. Things can get worse for those students, and if the SAT gets ditched by the top schools, things will get worse.
Why do we have to keep writing the same things over and over? You know what I said, and I know you disagree.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
You keep saying “things can get worse”. Why? Seriously, why? The study showed those middle class students are at a huge disadvantage already – those are the ones most likely to get rejected. You seem to be arguing for keeping the status quo with the hopes that the relatively very small percentage of students who are Black will be replaced by white and Asian students with higher SAT scores because that is far more “fair” to you than replacing privileged students given every advantage with lower SAT scores. But it is that group of privileged students with lower SAT scores who are taking far more seats.
I am just asking you to be consistent. If SAT scores are important, than a public school student with higher SAT scores should always be admitted over a private school student. This artificial “floor” where a 1500 = 1600 when comparing affluent private school students to affluent public school students but a 1500 > than 1400 when comparing affluent public school students to economically disadvantaged students is absurd and not based in any science.
Why count SATs at all if they are only going to be used to compare apples to oranges instead of apples to apples?
LikeLike
Good lord, I already explained why.
LikeLike
You didn’t explain at all. You just repeatedly said that it would be bad because those “other” factors would be more important. Which seems odd since the study pointed out that those “other” factors were exactly what was keeping affluent and middle class public school students who are “well-qualified” out of those schools right now!
You are all over the place, but what is consistent is you seem to defend a system that gives the most privileged students an indefensible admissions boost by using a vague term like “well-qualified”.
You used “Well-qualified” to describe legacy students you said were basically guaranteed to get admitted to an elite school despite there being huge numbers of “well-qualified” students who get rejected.
You also seem to invoke “Well-qualified” to refer to affluent public school students who you believe will be harmed dreadfully because a small percentage of “well-qualified” disadvantaged students with lower SAT scores (which I assume you believe makes them less well-qualified) might be admitted before them. So they need their SAT scores to prove their superiority so they can get admitted over those more disadvantaged students.
FLERP! says: “A world where Harvard ditches the SAT is the best possible world for mediocre children of the very wealthy, and the worst possible world for the exceptionally bright children of the middle class.”
Harvard has already made the SAT virtually irrelevant for more mediocre children of the very wealthy. They don’t have to be “exceptionally bright”, they just have to meet a relatively low bar of “qualified” to get them admitted over exceptionally bright children of the middle class. Do you know the SAT score required to make a private school student “qualified” versus “well-qualified”? I doubt there is one.
A world where Harvard ditches affirmative action for affluent private school students is the worst possible world for mediocre children of the very wealthy, and the best possible world for the exceptionally bright children of the middle class. Until that is ditched, using the SAT to distinguish affluent public school students from economically disadvantaged public school students is not going to do anything for the students you keep citing as being harmed.
LikeLike
I can’t follow much of what you’re saying, but let me be clear that I have no problem with ditching legacy admissions preferences. By all means, Harvard and the rest should do that. I just don’t think it will have any impact on demographics at these schools.
Try limiting yourself to three or four short sentences per comment. I bet it would improve the clarity of your arguments a lot.
LikeLike
Posted reply to this in wrong place. Writing more succinct version:
FLERP!,
It’s hard to follow your arguments as they are all over the place and seem to often contradict. Do I have this right?
Ditching legacy preferences is good.
Ditching legacy preferences will not impact demographics.
Ditching legacy preferences will not impact demographics because legacy students will be dispersed among other elite schools due to their all being “well-qualified” and certain to be admitted to one of those elite schools.
“Well-qualified” students from public schools like Stuy have a hard time getting admitted to elite schools.
“Well-qualified” students from Stuy have a hard time getting into elite schools, but well-qualified legacy students who no longer have legacy preference will definitely get into an elite school due to them being “well-qualified.”
We must keep the SAT because “well-qualified” students like those from Stuy who don’t get into elite schools will be at a disadvantage that they don’t have now because they also don’t get into elite schools unless they are “well-qualified” legacies, in which case they would have no trouble getting into any elite school because they are “well-qualified” and don’t need the legacy advantage to get into an elite school.
It’s so confusing to follow your train of thought.
LikeLike
I wonder if admittance forms for Elite Colleges ask for proof of the parents financial gross/net worth and annual earnings, that is then used as one of the elements used to determine who gets in.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
SES segregation is so extreme in the US that simply knowing the home zip code will go a long way towards knowing household income. If you know home address, any one of the many sites like Zillow will estimate the value of the home.
LikeLike
Teachingecoonimist,
Nope, the study showed that what mattered wasn’t parental income, but whether those students were from elite private schools or affluent public schools.
“The biggest contributor was that admissions committees gave higher scores to students from private, nonreligious high schools. They were twice as likely to be admitted as similar students — those with the same SAT scores, race, gender and parental income — from public schools in high-income neighborhoods,”
No need to look at zip code if colleges are filling a disproportionately high percentage of seats with students from private schools (despite them having no better academic qualifications than students from public schools.)
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Perhaps you should read the post I was responding to with my post. The important part of Lloyd’s post was “ I wonder if admittance forms for Elite Colleges ask for proof of the parents financial gross/net worth and annual earnings”, hence my post about parents financial situation.
LikeLike
😂 It’s just amazing
LikeLike
Teachingeconomist,
I assumed you would be very interested to learn that it isn’t just household income but coming from an elite private school that determines who gets in. Colleges see a group of students with the same academic achievements, the same high test scores, the same affluent background, and say “the one who had 13 years of the best education money can buy certainly must be more deserving because they worked especially hard to manage to be at the same level as a public school student who achieved that same academic excellence. After all, look at how the employees of the private school vouch for that student’s excellence!”
LikeLike
Lloyd,
I assume colleges need to know which students need financial aid and which don’t.
LikeLike
Students can fill out a FASFA form so that universities know how much to charge each student and family, but that will not let them know how much over the threshold the family will be.
LikeLike
The FAFSA form will give schools an idea of how much they can charge relatively low income students, but it does not let the university know if the household is in the top 5% or the top .1%.
LikeLike
Sorry about the double post. Spotty Wi-Fi here watching the USWNT.
LikeLike
I noticed that this is a working paper. There is lots of discussion to be had and the possibility of revision before it is published. However, it is really difficult to find too many real problems with a paper published by this team.
LikeLike
“published by this team” (Opportunity Insights) funded by Bill Gates.
“Really difficult to find real problems”- Public school privatization, rammed down the throats of American democracy by oligarch Gates and his paid influencers has had real problems e.g. Christian nationalist schools and Catholic schools funded by taxpayers. In reference to Catholic schools, 30% are single sex, some have altered the US pledge of allegiance recited by students to include church doctrine. Check out the difference in operation of the Christo Rey chain in the inner city and the suburban Catholic schools. Which would you want your kids to attend?
Picking and choosing the good and bad of oligarch spending, gleaning bias from faculty grants that enrich the professors, establishing credibility with a report like this one, then, follow-up reports steering towards social Darwinism…
When Gates didn’t like the decision of Washington state Supreme Court justices relative to public education, he funded efforts to defeat the re-election of the judges.
LikeLike
Not sure how much Gate $$ had to do with this excellent study. The major takeaways:
The first three indicate that the Ivy+ school admissions focus is in high income families and factors other than academic ability:
• Ivy-Plus colleges are more than twice as likely to admit
a student from a high-income family as compared to
low- or middle-income families with comparable SAT/
ACT scores.
• Higher admission rates for students from high-income
families can be attributed to three factors: preferences
for children of alumni (legacies), higher non-academic
ratings, and athletic recruitment
• The three factors underlying the high-income
admissions advantage are not associated with better
post-college outcomes; in contrast, SAT/ACT scores and
academic ratings are highly predictive of post-college
success.
There is an economic advantage to holding a degree from an Ivy+ school.
• Attending an Ivy-Plus instead of a flagship public college
triples students’ chances of obtaining jobs at prestigious
firms and substantially increases their chances of
earning in the top 1%.
The last takeaway is the biggest. Increasing diversity is a goal worthy of our support.
• By changing their admissions policies, Ivy-Plus colleges
could significantly diversify the socioeconomic
backgrounds of America’s highest earners and leaders.
One of the research partners listed for Opportunity Insights is Emanuel Saez from Cal/Berkely. His research in income equality in the United States (with Tomas Piketty, author of Capital in the Twenty-first century) began the discussion of income inequality in the United States. My son did his postdoc with Saez which is why he is on my radar.
The Gates Foundation may support all manor of unworthy causes. But this study must stand on its merits. It gives a clear path to improving socio-economic diversity in USA. I hope you will consider this. Gates is most often a problem. The biggest problem I have seen with Chetty is that policy-makers and pundits misuse his data to support the ideas they already support rather than using it to inform good policy. Economists all over the profession are cynical over the ability of politicians to properly use the data and analysis that they provide.
LikeLike