Podcast Summary
Study reveals systemic favoritism towards the rich in US college admissions: The study found that affluent students are more qualified on average, but colleges still give significant advantages to privileged students over similarly qualified low-income students, contributing to societal inequality
The new study on elite college admissions in the US reveals a systemic favoritism towards the rich and super rich. The study, which combined admissions records and tax returns, offers the most authoritative look yet at how privilege plays a role in college admissions. Researchers found that affluent students are more qualified on average, but colleges still give significant advantages to privileged students over similarly qualified middle and low-income students. For instance, at some schools, the study found that students from the top 1% income bracket were three times more likely to be admitted than those from the bottom 60%. This disparity contributes to the existing societal inequality and sparks calls for changes in the college admissions process.
Study reveals wealth plays a role in Ivy Plus College admissions: A study found that 9% of Ivy Plus College students come from the top 1% income distribution, despite not having the best academic qualifications. Wealthy students benefit from legacy admissions, alumni connections, and development officers reaching out to them, giving them an edge in the admissions process.
A study on admissions at Ivy Plus Colleges revealed that about 9% of students come from the top 1% income distribution, despite not having the best academic qualifications. These students' wealth gave them an unfair advantage in the admissions process. However, colleges argue that they are need-blind, meaning they don't consider income during admissions. The study explains this discrepancy by pointing to three factors that correlate with wealth and give wealthy students an advantage: legacy admissions, alumni connections, and development officers reaching out to wealthy applicants. These factors, not wealth directly, contribute to the wealthier students' higher admission rates. This study highlights the existence of a form of affirmative action for the nation's wealthiest kids in college admissions.
Legacy admissions and private schools perpetuate privilege: Legacy students and private school graduates often have an unfair advantage in college admissions due to their socio-economic backgrounds, perpetuating privilege. Despite efforts to control for these factors, the advantages are difficult to fully mitigate, concentrating opportunities among those who already have them.
Legacy admissions and private school backgrounds give some applicants an unfair advantage in the college admission process, perpetuating privilege. Legacy students, on average, have higher academic qualifications due to their socio-economic backgrounds. However, about half of legacy students wouldn't have been admitted without their legacy status. Private schools effectively prepare students for the application process, making their applicants more likely to be accepted than equally qualified students from public schools. Despite admissions officers' efforts to control for these factors, the advantages of legacy status and private school education are difficult to fully mitigate. This results in colleges concentrating opportunities among those who already have them.
Private school background and athletic participation impact college admissions: Private school students often receive stronger recommendations due to smaller student-to-counselor ratios, while athletics, particularly at the high school level, have become exclusive and disproportionately represent affluent students in college sports, potentially skewing the admissions process towards privileged applicants.
The college admissions process can be influenced by factors beyond academic merit, such as private school background and athletic participation. The study suggests that private school students often have stronger recommendations due to smaller student-to-counselor ratios, making their applications stand out more. Additionally, athletics, particularly at the high school level, have become increasingly expensive and exclusive, leading to a disproportionate representation of affluent students in college sports. At Ivy Plus Schools, for instance, one in every eight students from the top 1% income distribution is a recruited athlete, compared to only one in twenty for lower or middle income students. These findings underscore the need for a more equitable admissions process that considers the full range of applicant backgrounds and circumstances.
Money's Role in College Admissions: The college admissions process favors the wealthy through athletic ability, legacy status, and private school education, disadvantaging the upper middle class and perpetuating inequality
The college admissions process is influenced by factors beyond academic merit, including athletic ability and wealth. The discussion highlighted that many people, including ourselves, may have underestimated the role of money in creating better athletes and gaining admission to prestigious colleges. This inequality perpetuates advantages for the rich and disadvantages for the upper middle class and, to some extent, the poor. While student-athletes are impressive individuals, the societal impact of this pattern is perpetuating advantages for the wealthy. The most disadvantaged group in the college admissions process, when considering only those who apply to these schools, are upper middle class students who lack the advantages of athletic talent, legacy status, and private school education. However, it's important to note that poor children have fewer opportunities overall to apply to these schools, making the situation more complex. Ultimately, the data shows that the top 1% and particularly the top 0.1% are the most advantaged in the college admissions process.
Traditions of favoring the wealthy in colleges: Legacy admissions, private school backgrounds, and athletics advantage the wealthy, making it difficult for colleges to significantly increase enrollment for low-income students and underrepresented minorities, despite the potential benefits of reforms.
The systems in place at colleges that advantage the well-off, such as legacy admissions, private school polish, and athletics, are harder to change than one might think. Legacy admissions, for example, are not a recent invention by colleges but rather a norm in American society, with many industries and institutions relying on it for generations. Colleges argue that these traditions have significant benefits, such as creating a long-term investment in the institution and fostering a sense of commitment among students and alumni. However, the full impact of eliminating these systems on increasing enrollment for low-income students and underrepresented minorities is not guaranteed. Colleges may find it challenging to change these deeply ingrained practices, and the extent of reforms will depend on their willingness to address these issues in a comprehensive manner.
The Significance of Legacy Admissions: Colleges value long-term commitment and investment from families with multigenerational connections, but the future of legacy admissions is uncertain due to increasing diversity and political pressure
The connection between alumni and elite colleges goes beyond just financial transactions. These institutions value the long-term commitment and investment from families who have a multigenerational connection to the school. Legacy admissions, while perceived as contributing to privilege, also have cultural and institutional significance. However, the landscape is changing as colleges become more diverse, and political pressure against legacy admissions is rising. The SAT, which is often criticized for perpetuating advantages, might end up being replaced by factors like essays, extracurricular activities, and teacher recommendations, which could be even more skewed towards the affluent. The future of legacy admissions is uncertain, but it's clear that colleges need to find ways to mitigate the advantages identified in this study.
Standardized tests offer consistent measure for colleges to identify promising lower and middle income students: Colleges can use SAT and ACT to identify economically diverse students despite their flaws, as they offer a more consistent measure than grades which can be inflated or inconsistent between schools.
The SAT and ACT, despite their flaws, might be the least gameable metrics for colleges to identify promising lower and middle income students. These standardized tests, while imperfect, offer a more consistent measure than grades due to grade inflation and inconsistency between schools. Colleges could also consider admitting more students from public schools to increase economic diversity, but this may come at the cost of losing tuition revenue from affluent students. Some colleges have made progress in this area, but it requires prioritizing economic diversity over other budget considerations. Ultimately, it remains to be seen if colleges are willing to make these changes, as the current system financially benefits them with tuition revenue from affluent students and reinforces their culture through legacy admissions.
Pressure on colleges to address unfair advantages in admission system: College administrators face pressure to reduce bias towards the rich in admissions, but the future of these changes is uncertain
College administrators are facing pressure to address the unfair advantages in the current college admission system, but they are also torn between maintaining the status quo and making changes. Researchers like Harvard economist Raj Chetty argue that colleges only need to remove their implicit bias towards the rich, rather than actively favoring them. The recent Supreme Court decision and public scrutiny add pressure on colleges to make changes. However, the future of these changes remains uncertain. In a separate news item, a court hearing for Hunter Biden's tax charges was put on hold due to a disagreement between his lawyers and prosecutors over the implications of his plea deal. The case raises questions about potential favoritism or leniency due to Biden's relation to the President.
