[larrys]

"being used by colleges to leverage the admission of even more average students from well-off families"

Entirely possible that the mix of students at a University as far as "class" needs to be skewed a certain way as well to gain other hidden benefits..(Add: in addition to what else is being talked about in your and other comments.)

For example you don't want 90% of your students coming from NY State, you don't want 90% of your students to be asian and you may very well want a larger percentage of your students coming from upper middle class families just because it creates (in their opinion) a better environment as a whole at the University.

Meaning a mediocre student from a wealthy family is still a person from a wealthy family. A mediocre student from a lower class family is a person raised in a lower class family. Different dress, different actions etc. (I'm purposely using extremes to try and make the point about possible motives.)

All of this of course is not talked about but entirely possible that it exists (pure speculation). Just as it's possible that two women interviewing with exactly the same qualifications (and family background) one who is extremely attractive and one that isn't, the attractive one gets the admission.

Your thoughts?

[nostrademons]

At the colleges that are providing generous need-based aid to the poor, that aid often comes from admitting dubiously-qualified legacies with rich parents and charging them full price (or soliciting donations for a few mil).

I went to the college that was specifically called out as "The Best of the Best" in the linked NewAmerica report. There were a fair number of complete dumbasses who also attended, and continued attending despite infractions that would've gotten a normal student expelled. Their family names frequently were on the board of trustees. Their family names were also on the notebooks I bought all through elementary school and on the department stores where my mom bought all our clothes. I suspect they've given more to the college than I'll ever earn in my lifetime.

It's generally impossible to do social good without having power. Power often means making certain accommodations to rich & powerful people. There's a strong element of Robin Hood behind pretty much any sustainable philanthropic program. A lot of being able to do good in this world is knowing just how much you can afford to piss off rich & powerful people, and how much help you can extract from them, in trying to achieve your social goals.

[tokenadult]

I don't how much more clear I need to make my last comment in this thread to point out that the United States problem is that wealthy family students are already HUGELY overrepresented among college students, and an actually DUMB student from a wealthy family is much more likely to be recruited by a college, admitted to a college, and supported through graduation by a college than an actually smart student from a "lower class" (your term) family. Money talks more than smarts when it comes to college admissions in the United States. Many countries consciously set different policies, and I think that is a good idea. (For one thing, among many other possible reasons for supporting such national policies, national policies that favor brains over money in admission to higher education appear to have higher sustained rates of economic growth for the whole country and lower rates of income inequality in the national population.)

From the Business Week article I linked to in my first comment:

"For example, the paper cites data that show 19 percent of freshman with SAT scores under 700 (out of a maximum 2,400) received merit aid, as did 27 percent of freshman with scores between 700 and 999. The term 'merit scholarships,' in other words, is a misnomer, the report says, because schools can distribute the aid however they please."

I do agree with you that if colleges decide the policies, they will presumably decide for the benefit of colleges, rather than for the benefit of society as a whole. What is objectionable about United States practice is federal tax-supported subsidies to colleges that the colleges distort into benefits for wealthier individuals.

[waps]

Another way to formulate the same issue would be: Colleges more likely to give $5000 in aid than $10000 in aid. News at 11.

Sucks if you absolutely need $10000 in aid of course. Is it killing the poor ? No. I worked my way through college and paid full tuition, and only got semi-sponsored housing because some friend told me that some monks actually did that if you made your case to them (essentialy you had to get and keep getting good grades. 80%+ good grades that is, a lot tougher than it sounds (average of class was < 50%), especially if you need a job to pay for tuition as well). So I did present my grades to these monks, and they got me in that system. Later I was able to trade other things (like helping run a fraternity in trade for a room at the fraternity house).

"Many countries consciously set different policies, and I think ..."

Yes, I've seen that in Western Europe. Specifically you can get full tuition scholarship + free housing if your parents pay less than $x in income tax. That sounds great, until you realize ... that rich people are often paid through a company, and can simply set their own pay, and "invest" the rest in a new mercedes or a new house (which I agree is a defensible investment in some cases, but not in most cases). The pay they set, you ask ? $the_limit - 1 for example. (the same limit is used for free childcare, >50% reduction on health insurance, the list goes on ...). About 50% of the people in the free housing had rich parents (you can't tell how much tuition they pay, but you can tell where they live, and whether it's sponsored). That's how at least one "other country" does it.

They try to keep these rich cheaters people away from housing aid, and even that is just mostly people behind the counter acting illegally on behalf of the poor.