As I read Andrew Delbanco's story on the "Scandals of Higher Education" I became angry myself with our academic system in the United States. I feel that the wealthy are able to send their children to higher caliber colleges and universities because they have the money to get them to that point. For example: These parents can send their children to the best private schools with the best college guidance counselors and best SAT prep tutors. The system, in a sense, is rigid to serve the wealthy because these students are better equipped to attend Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, for example. Delbanco described his thoughts on these colleges recruitment status, "Our richest colleges could and should do a better job of recruiting needy students, which would require spending more money on the effort to find and support them." I agree with this statement completely. Some of these students may be attending private high schools on scholarship or an everyday public high school, but regardless, it needs to be recognized that these kids are capable of the Ivy's academic arena. The collegiate system is getting tougher to get into as the years go by and I was happy to see that this article recognized that and supported view points that go against the norm of society.
I completely agree with Malika's post especially with the quote referring to the fact that "our richest colleges could and should do a better job of recruiting needy students", though it does cost them money. I found a website that makes reference to CNN stating that most four-year colleges spend about $2,000 on each student they have recruited successfully. If colleges did do a better job of recruiting the most elite academic students, no matter how much money the student has, colleges would have to increase from that $2,000 per student they already spend. I say colleges should do it because the article continues to say that though they do spend quite a bit on each student, it pays off in the long run. Even if the student needs finanical aid "...but [is] outstanding academically may be very beneficial to the college. High ACT scores will kick the college average up a notch. Higher scores raise the ranking of the college. Higher ranking produces higher prestige." Enough said. So why don't colleges compete and spend a little more money to recruit those outstanding academic students to their own college?
ReplyDelete*Read more at Suite101: Recruiting College Students: How much do colleges actually spend to recruit a student? http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/recruiting_college_students#ixzz0foJaFw3C
Education in regards to the college admissions process is a challenging subject to understand. I feel as though the writer has a solid grasp of the material present in the article "scandals of higher education", and I agree partially with your statement. I do not disagree with the points articulated, but wish to present a possible counter argument.
ReplyDeleteCollege admission's offices are expected to admit a diverse student body, while retaining academic standards. Ethnicity, geographic location, and economic circumstances alter the discussions of those deciding the fate of applicants. Often students of unique backgrounds gain an advantage on other students, as admissions officers are filling student quotas. Capable students are neglected because they are part of the applying majority, blending in with other hopefully applicants. I understand that elite colleges need to admit more students from underprivileged situations, but at what point does this policy become unfair to other students. Is it fair for them to be penalized for having wealthy parents, or eventing working parents? They did nothing wrong, they took the tests, studied hard. Were is the balance?
http://www.time.com/time/magizine/article/0,9171,903191,00.html
The posted article, is an experience with this struggle to find the balance.
I really disagreed with the statements made in the article “Scandals of Higher Education.” In particular I opposed the sentence, “There are very few POOR students at America’s top colleges, and a large growing number of RICH ones.” I feel as though this is a very vague statement. The author should question WHO is rich. Is it the parents or the students? Most likely it is the PARENTS that have money. So, when applying for financial aid and a student’s PARENTS own multiple homes and vehicles and have bank accounts and no debt, is that the STUDENT’S doing? No. There is the assumption that all “wealthy” families will pay the tuition for their children. This is an ignorant assumption. The students whose PARENTS are well off are penalized by not receiving any financial aid. It is unfair to those students who really do need the aid but have been declined by FAFSA based upon the numbers written on the form pertaining to their PARENT’S wealth.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that “Our richest colleges could and should do a better job of recruiting needy students.” I agree with the article that doing so would require spending more money on the effort to find them and support them. I again question what defines a “needy” student. I am sure plenty of students who they themselves are not “rich,” but have parents who are “rich,” are paying for their own schooling. The school already has needy students that they should be supporting, even if it is a private, Ivy League school. I believe that if you cannot afford these “selective colleges” even with the scholarships that the school offers, there is such a thing as a STATE SCHOOL. Attending a private, Ivy League school is a CHOICE. If you can’t afford it, then too bad, there are plenty of other state schools to attend. Sometimes people have to realize that life is not fair and it never will be, and sometimes the truth hurts. If financial aid cannot even be properly distributed in the first place, it is a stretch to think that Ivy League schools are responsible for seeking out this definition of “needy” students.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/756718-do-parents-really-pay-college-4.html
Excerpt from web link:
“The problem with the system is that we have tremendous focus on addressing economic inequities based on parent income. But there is no acknowledgement that, income aside, students are very much at the mercy of the parental discretion. Consequently, there is a LOT of inequity among students over who can attend what college despite all the FA and endowments.
And, of course, the uncomfortable fact is that these children are legal adults - why should their cost of attendance be contingent on their parents' income when their parents have no legal responsibility for them?”
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/swa0192l.jpg
ReplyDeleteI just thought this was an interesting cartoon/image that applied to the article. The use of irony makes it funny, but it makes a point. It goes to show that wealthy parents especially alumni will use their money to get their way into the richest colleges, almost too much, which was a point made in the "Scandals in Higher Education" article.