04-12-2015, 10:02 PM
I agree that the article suffers from a poor headline. The headline makes it look like the author thinks that the tuition waver is a negative; the actual article is more along the "that's nice but it doesn't address the root problem". Key passage:
That passage is undercut by the headline. (By the way, whether the headline writer meant it or not, I read the headline, which called the tuition giveaway as "not good news" to be that it was "bad news").
The thing is, if you read what the admissions department says, Stanford is applying an informal "affirmative action" program based on social class. Stanford admissions for example, wants students to make the most of opportunities they encounter, which means that poor students who go to a school that only offers two AP classes won't get penalized for not having more so long as they take advantage of the limited opportunities they have been presented. On the other hand, students going to a rich private school that offers dozen AP classes might raise eyebrows if they "only" took two. Likewise, when it comes time to reading the essay, a student who describes how they overcame poverty to become the first in his or her family to go to college will have a more compelling story than the umpteenth mission trip essay that talks about how the applicant was inspired to make the world a better place after seeing the abject poverty in a poor developing country [For disclosure, I should note that I am part of an annual mission trip to provide respiratory care to Honduras, and I think they are great things, but it has become a such a cliché that I heard an admissions officer single out the "mission trip essay" as an overdone trope; see also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gianna-sen...93986.html].
There are two problems that I see. The first is that smart underspriveled (sic) students are undercut by the low expectations of their teachers, councilors, and administrators. Sadly, the goal is simply to get them to college, not to get them to an elite school, so students are advised to apply to their local CSU, or maybe UC, not to elite institutions. Some of it is simply ignorance; overworked councilors guide students to what they know, and many don't have a history of sending students to places like Stanford and the Ivies. Some of it is a bit of prejudice; students are made to believe they wouldn't fit in at a place like Stanford, or that they would struggle academically and socially at a place like Stanford. Where Stanford and others can (and are starting to) be helpful here is by visiting these schools and demystifying the process and letting students, teachers, and administrators know that kids from underspriveled backgrounds can and do succeed at a place like Stanford. To this end, is there a better representative for us than Richard Sherman? Not only is he a highly public example of a kid from Compton thriving at Stanford and beyond, but he now goes back to his school and talks to the students, letting them know that yes they can.Â
The second issue is that once underspriveled kids make it to an elite University, it is important to ensure they have the support to thrive. There was a great This American Life episode that illustrated just how much of a challenge it is culturally for a student from a poor background to go to an elite place like Stanford (and even non-elite private schools like USC where the socioeconomic status of the student body is significantly higher than what they are used to). Here's the link:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/play_full.php?play=550
I share the author's concern about the lack of economic diversity at elite universities. The stats he cites are eye-opening, and I think everyone loses when elite schools become too economically homogenous. And I do agree that more needs to be done than simply waving tuition. Where I depart from the author is that unlike him, I don't dismiss the tuition wavers (and unlike the headline writer, I don't think they are "not a good thing"). It is important that not only is admissions need blind, but that the decision to attend not be driven by economics. When an underspriveled kid gets the fat envelope from Stanford, the last thing we want is for him to look at it and the first thought be "I can't afford this".
Lastly, and I realize that this is a bit "ad hominem", but still, I can't help but notice that the author's job as tutoring manager for the Princeton Review completely undercuts his argument. He's part of the problem he decries. How about instead of working for the Princeton Review, he work to bring the same sort of tutoring, mentoring, and academic coaching to underspriveled kids who would otherwise be great candidates to go to an elite university like Stanford.
BC
Quote:It is noble that Stanford wants to make sure that any kid who is talented enough to gain admission there, regardless of income, has the option of doing so. It is, of course, preferable that Stanford and other schools have tuition waivers than nothing at all. These programs can only achieve their objective, however, if there are enough low-income high-school students who are accomplished enough to make the application cut for elite schools.
That passage is undercut by the headline. (By the way, whether the headline writer meant it or not, I read the headline, which called the tuition giveaway as "not good news" to be that it was "bad news").
The thing is, if you read what the admissions department says, Stanford is applying an informal "affirmative action" program based on social class. Stanford admissions for example, wants students to make the most of opportunities they encounter, which means that poor students who go to a school that only offers two AP classes won't get penalized for not having more so long as they take advantage of the limited opportunities they have been presented. On the other hand, students going to a rich private school that offers dozen AP classes might raise eyebrows if they "only" took two. Likewise, when it comes time to reading the essay, a student who describes how they overcame poverty to become the first in his or her family to go to college will have a more compelling story than the umpteenth mission trip essay that talks about how the applicant was inspired to make the world a better place after seeing the abject poverty in a poor developing country [For disclosure, I should note that I am part of an annual mission trip to provide respiratory care to Honduras, and I think they are great things, but it has become a such a cliché that I heard an admissions officer single out the "mission trip essay" as an overdone trope; see also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gianna-sen...93986.html].
There are two problems that I see. The first is that smart underspriveled (sic) students are undercut by the low expectations of their teachers, councilors, and administrators. Sadly, the goal is simply to get them to college, not to get them to an elite school, so students are advised to apply to their local CSU, or maybe UC, not to elite institutions. Some of it is simply ignorance; overworked councilors guide students to what they know, and many don't have a history of sending students to places like Stanford and the Ivies. Some of it is a bit of prejudice; students are made to believe they wouldn't fit in at a place like Stanford, or that they would struggle academically and socially at a place like Stanford. Where Stanford and others can (and are starting to) be helpful here is by visiting these schools and demystifying the process and letting students, teachers, and administrators know that kids from underspriveled backgrounds can and do succeed at a place like Stanford. To this end, is there a better representative for us than Richard Sherman? Not only is he a highly public example of a kid from Compton thriving at Stanford and beyond, but he now goes back to his school and talks to the students, letting them know that yes they can.Â
The second issue is that once underspriveled kids make it to an elite University, it is important to ensure they have the support to thrive. There was a great This American Life episode that illustrated just how much of a challenge it is culturally for a student from a poor background to go to an elite place like Stanford (and even non-elite private schools like USC where the socioeconomic status of the student body is significantly higher than what they are used to). Here's the link:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/play_full.php?play=550
I share the author's concern about the lack of economic diversity at elite universities. The stats he cites are eye-opening, and I think everyone loses when elite schools become too economically homogenous. And I do agree that more needs to be done than simply waving tuition. Where I depart from the author is that unlike him, I don't dismiss the tuition wavers (and unlike the headline writer, I don't think they are "not a good thing"). It is important that not only is admissions need blind, but that the decision to attend not be driven by economics. When an underspriveled kid gets the fat envelope from Stanford, the last thing we want is for him to look at it and the first thought be "I can't afford this".
Lastly, and I realize that this is a bit "ad hominem", but still, I can't help but notice that the author's job as tutoring manager for the Princeton Review completely undercuts his argument. He's part of the problem he decries. How about instead of working for the Princeton Review, he work to bring the same sort of tutoring, mentoring, and academic coaching to underspriveled kids who would otherwise be great candidates to go to an elite university like Stanford.
BC