[csa]

This is at best a half truth. Going to these schools helps, but it is not necessary.

There are an abundance of people who are qualified to get into elite universities at less-than-best schools in a given state.

There are three main issues that I see:

1. They self-select out of applying. They know lots of smart people, but they don’t know anyone else who applied, so those elite schools must be impossible to get into.

2. Their teachers/administrators have no idea how to write a strong recommendation for a stellar student. The applicants don’t know how to choose people who can write good recommendations.

3. The applicants don’t know about the small tweaks in their extracurriculars that will make them standout (e.g., demonstrating leadership, vision, etc.), and/or they don’t know how to write about their considerable achievements in a compelling way (e.g., I’ve heard an incredible and incredibly modest person saying that their considerable achievements were not worth discussing on an appication because “Well, what else would you do? Isn’t this just normal?” Answer, no, it was not normal.).

Note also that plenty of the “poor” students have been recruited in one way or another, with athletes probably being the biggest recruiting pool.

[thrwthrw93223]

What you wrote only adds to, not negates my overall message. These are the products of being poor.

[csa]

I think the admissions practices are largely fine, and they dont, by design, aim to keep poor people out (as you suggested).

I think that these schools could do a better job at educating potential applicants and the circle of people around said potential applicants much better. In my opinion, the internet has democratized this process considerably over the past 20 years or so, but I think there is still considerable room for improvement, especially by the universities themselves.

[kaitai]

I guess I'd disagree, in that admissions practices at many schools are designed to admit children of rich people. Sure, poor people aren't penalized for being poor per se, but they're not going to contribute to the endowment, you know?

So you get a boost for being a legacy, for having parents who are rich, for being from a rich feeder school that indicates you have parents who are rich, etc. It's not that you get a -1 on your point total for being poor. It's that you get a lot of +1s for being well-off, because ultimately well-off people give more money back to the school & produce well-off alumni who are attractive to well-off applicants. At private colleges and universities in particular there is a careful attention paid to long-term revenue, as colleges are feeling the economic squeeze in the amenities arms race. Colleges are separating into 'winners' and 'losers' and that sorting is along the lines of revenue and endowment.

The article is right on that connecting unconnected kids with connected peers is the biggest benefit of an 'elite' education. 'Winner' colleges today are trying to surf the wave of existing power structures rather than create/educate a new wave of potential elites.

[small_island]

I worked at a well-known Texas college for a few years in the IT department. I can tell you first hand they overcharge. Tenured professors are largely lazy. They are paid enormous sums of money for as little as 4 hours' work daily. The adjuncts work their tails off and while they are making 75k+, the whole thing is a sham. Let's not talk about incoming students with credits from other institutions who are like 4 credit hours short and they make them take a full year or more (because they can), and charge out the wazoo and think you should be grateful. Working for this college let me know one thing: those who can't, teach. More than once I had to step in and assist the CS professors with basic things they should have known. Tenured professors whose CV read like they must have been there at the epoch and worked with Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson.

[fiftyfifty]

In addition access to exclusive and expensive sports, if you have the money, some easy tickets into the Ivy League include: fencing, sailing, rowing (crew), lacrosse, golf, tennis and equestrian.

[bilbo0s]

And if you don't have the money, being elite at any other sport will do. Soccer, basketball, football, track, etc.

A run of the mill guy or gal with a straight A record and shooting 60% from three will find a ready welcome at Stanford. That same run of the mill straight A student would be laughed out of the room if they applied without the elite basketball skills. Your daughter might not have much of a chance as a simple straight A student, but if she has straight A's and runs a 48 or 49 second 400... yeah... I can guarantee you that they'll make room for her.

If you're talking about using sports to get in, then almost any sport will do, you don't have to have money for the expensive ones. Problem is, you kind of have to be elite to make it work. Four year varsity starter, state champion level basically.

[csa]

> Problem is, you kind of have to be elite to make it work. Four year varsity starter, state champion level basically.

Maybe at Stanford. Maybe at Ivies in certain highly competitive sports (e.g., rowing).

In most sports, simply being a recruitable athlete at a level lower than “power conference” but higher than NAIA (maybe?) is possible depending on the sport and/or specialty. In terms of skill, any high school with 1000+ students probably has 10-50+ students in this category — grades and/or lack of desire are often holding them back from a tertiary education of any kind. Said another way, that’s much lower than “state champion” level.

Again, knowing how to get recruited and having a coach who knows how to showcase talent for recruiters goes a long way. That said, it only helps, but is not required in most sports.

I’m really glad you mentioned running as an example. There are a ton of good track & field and cross-country folks who: 1) can improve significantly just by training well, and 2) are very recruitable at the Ivy League level. Want-to goes a long way.