In this day and age, with all the fierce competition, it's a real problem that elite universities are admitting rich kids on such unfair and uneven grounds.
Going to the "correct" school can transform the life of some people, essentially pulling them up from the lower working classes, and opening up the doors to middle, or even upper-middle classes.
And what's even worse, a lot of these rich kids could go pretty much anywhere, without it affecting their future finances or lifestyle - if anything, it almost seems like a vanity project from their parents side, where they get the bragging rights that their kids are studying at HYPS or whatever.
And it's not that the kids of richer parents are necessarily worse, academically speaking - many of them get private tutors, go to private / prep schools, etc. from young age, but still the parents are so risk averse, that they feel the need to pour even more money, just to eliminate the stress of uncertainty. Even if it's illegal.
I know these cases encompass a broad range of controversy (for example that top-tier Asian-American students can't get into certain schools, because of some nonsensical "personality" assessments) - but in the end, it's just plain old classism. Doesn't mater what skin color you have, where you come from; As long as you have the cash, the odds are increasing in your favor.
Then you have rich folks like David E. Shaw. The guy spent literally tens of millions in donations, to all the top schools, just to increase the chance of his kids getting accepted (or rather - minimize the chances of their kids getting rejected)
And just in case anyone thinks the idea that an elite school won't help a rich kid, there have been studies indicating that is the case.
The one that comes to mind was the study that compared long term outcomes of students who were accepted to Harvard and attended to those who were accepted but did not attend.
Average future incomes were not statistically different.
But the study did note that the starkest improvents in future incomes were found in poor and minority students.
I'm not going to shit on a study I haven't read, but it seems likely that if you come from a "rich" family capable of buying you into a college via back channels, you've probably already got a pretty solid leg up in the game. I can't imagine correcting for all of those variables in a manner which isn't going to leave at least a few questions.
Either way, I'm sure having a diploma from Harvard would open some doors for pretty much anyone, and I'm not naïve enough to pretend otherwise, but I have serious doubts that a diploma from Harvard can truly tell you anything other than that person has the ability to make it through Harvards' admission filter, and do mindless homework for X number of years, like every other college.
> compared long term outcomes of students who were accepted to Harvard and attended to those who were accepted but did not attend.
I don’t know if this comparison controls for the confounders. Alice and Bob are both accepted to Harvard, and Alice decides to attend and Bob decides to chill out at the University of Maui for four years. That’s pretty indicative of Alice being more ambitious and achievement-oriented.
Do you have a cite for this? Not saying you're wrong as it's my prior that selection bias is the most important factor in any difference in educational outcomes. But I'd love to have something solid to point to.
I will say I don't totally understand how future income differences can be not statistically significant and also be "stark" between lower income students at the same time.
The no-difference in financial outcomes was based on comparing the average incomes of the two groups. So naturally, you will have outliers on both sides. They found that minority students tended to be the outliers.
Part of that probably has to do with the more prestigious school getting them a job they wouldn't have had. But also probably has to do with minority students getting access to the rich, well connected network that they wouldn't have had access to otherwise.
Environment and options, too. The Finance Path, Consulting Path, Tech Path, Startup Path - the implicit assumptions of school A to Company B to Grad School C to Company D is objectively super weird (why is I-Banking > MBA > Consulting so standard a path?), but often critical to making a certain salary.
I’ve previously read this study (and at least one follow on study) and what they said jibes with my recollection. I’ll see if I can find the exact citation
Garbage in, garbage out. If you admit dummies, they are not
going to become a genius. The bigger issue for all of us is, now we are not supporting the students who could really move the needle. So the needle doesn't move.
It's probably true that generally rich kids could go to school pretty much anywhere and be okay, and that non-rich kids can have their lives transformed for the better by going to a reputable school. But isn't the latter due to the fact that people with power associate reputable schools with elite social status? Presumably if rich kids stopped going to a reputable school, it wouldn't take long for that school's reputation to diminish, even if the actual merit's of the education provided by the school didn't change.
I looked at DE Shaw's "philanthropy", the dude just gave top colleges a million dollars a year for like 5-6 years, which according to Wikipedia represented "60% of the Fund's philanthropy"
seeing this as an international student from a developing country, this is simply disheartening. It’s coming to the point where I’m starting to think hard about if it’s really worth applying to a US university at this point.
Going to the "correct" school can transform the life of some people, essentially pulling them up from the lower working classes, and opening up the doors to middle, or even upper-middle classes.
And what's even worse, a lot of these rich kids could go pretty much anywhere, without it affecting their future finances or lifestyle - if anything, it almost seems like a vanity project from their parents side, where they get the bragging rights that their kids are studying at HYPS or whatever.
And it's not that the kids of richer parents are necessarily worse, academically speaking - many of them get private tutors, go to private / prep schools, etc. from young age, but still the parents are so risk averse, that they feel the need to pour even more money, just to eliminate the stress of uncertainty. Even if it's illegal.
I know these cases encompass a broad range of controversy (for example that top-tier Asian-American students can't get into certain schools, because of some nonsensical "personality" assessments) - but in the end, it's just plain old classism. Doesn't mater what skin color you have, where you come from; As long as you have the cash, the odds are increasing in your favor.
Then you have rich folks like David E. Shaw. The guy spent literally tens of millions in donations, to all the top schools, just to increase the chance of his kids getting accepted (or rather - minimize the chances of their kids getting rejected)