Slashdot Mirror
100 Top Colleges Vow To Enroll More Low-Income Students (npr.org)
Research shows that just 3 percent of high-achieving, low-income students attend America's most selective colleges. And, it's not that these students just aren't there -- every year tens of thousands of top students who don't come from wealthy families never even apply to elite colleges. Universities are taking note -- and banding together under something called the American Talent Initiative -- a network backed by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Aspen Institute and the research firm Ithaka S+R. To join the club, schools have to graduate 70 percent of their students in six years -- a qualification that leaves just under 300 schools in the U.S. eligible. Nearly a third of those schools -- exactly 100 -- have signed on. Their goal? Enroll 50,000 additional low- and moderate-income students by 2025. From a report: Each school has its own goals, too -- many want to increase the number of Pell Grant students on campus, others aim to improve graduation rates -- but they're all on board to share strategies, learn from each other's missteps and provide data to monitor their progress.
Maybe they are too smart to want to attend "elite" colleges?
What percentage of high-achieving, middle income students attend the most selective school? Is it more or less that 3%?
and they drop out after never showing up, you get to keep the money!
I donâ(TM)t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.
Why would low income students want to compete against an advantaged set of students. Provide enrollment in the state universities, free of charge, and go from there.
Smart people don't waste years in college paying way to much for next to nothing. That is why they need more poor people to get into a life time of debt, smart people have shown that college is a scam and only the dumb poor people are left to steal from.
I want to see the list of which of the ~290 colleges with 70+% 6-year graduation rates have opted *not* to participate.
70% graduation rate in 6 years can be achieved in two ways:
1. Only admit qualified students.
2. Pass everyone.
How about 70% graduation rate plus 70% get jobs, in field? Yes I know, they'd just corrupt the definition of 'in field'.
I'd say that their current method has produced a list of 'elite schools' plus 'diploma mills'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Straddling low income people with loans that they'll never be able to pay off for overpriced education? Great idea... /s
Where is the list of the 100 schools?
Many colleges are acting more as short-term businesses. Getting more students to enter is good to build bureaucracies, and protect the mid-term and long-term careers of those bureaucrats. Turning colleges back towards academic testing grounds, where people come out with actual training in thought or in real engineering, is a thoughtful goal being overridden in the name of "safe spaces" where students feel engulfed in the endless womb of 4 years of complete protection, to be followed by another few years of grad school.
I'm watching a stack of my daughter's friends enter and go through college "pursuing their dreams" and refusing to actually do any work, of any kind. The colleges they attend are fostering this: it brings in tuition, fills classes, and helps the students "feel empowered". I conversely, paid my own housing, took years off during college to rebuild my resources to finish, and was pursuing my research field as an undergrad. And I have the patents to go with it. But right now? When a college professor has the time, at a public protest, to "get some muscle to get rid of this guy" on a reporter attending the protest, they all need to be sent out into the real world and hold down a job.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVq6Wk1m_p0
People make this decision with every other kind of investment, and yet people will still recommend higher education* as a good thing. How will this hurt the country in the end? Not as bad as the current damage being done to all those out there who took a chance and bet on the wrong horse. Dragging themselves and the nation down.
*Vocational can be a minefield as well. Lincoln Tech anyone?
There's a reason Colleges are called billion dollar hedge funds. The saying is Harvard is a hedge fund with a college attached.
College tuition keeps going up, the colleges know they will get paid. Kids cant file for bankruptcy if they cant pay their loans because they can't find work.
Go to a local community college, its the same price of buying a car for 4 years, and people can generally make car payments. In state online 5k, in state 10k, out of state 20k, Private 30k, Harvard 45k (starting). While everyone wants a Tesla, some can only afford a Prius. Costs matter.
The whole thing is a racket, overpriced, scam.
While I think that increasing opportunity for undeserved communities is laudable, I do think that you should be honest about the issues in poor communities. From TFA:
I'm 100 percent convinced that talent is distributed uniformly across society. There's no data to suggest that if you happen to be born into a less well-to-do family you are somehow less intelligent.
This is just not true. SAT scores are or were roughly an IQ test. They show a clear correlation to income, as outlined in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
There may be any number of causes of this, but denying the facts will likely lead to under prepared students starting and failing at college.
Speaking from experience.
Guaranteed money from state and federal gov'ts - why wouldn't they?
Just about any one can get an student loan.
They are becoming more like tech schools with there marketing with an degree you can make x an year and XX% Our Grads are working in their field. Starbucks seems to fit in to a lot Fields in their minds. But unlike the tech schools they are not as hands on, come with forced high cost meal planes and forced high cost dorms
Instead of letting these top schools get away with false promises, a much better solution would be to divert more federal funding (NIH/NSF) to smaller (non top100) schools that do have more low income students.
This is going to be mostly a waste of time and money for these colleges, hoping to satisfy SJW's. There are already plenty of governmental or private programs for lower income students who actually make good grades and show promise. This just drives more marginal students who are not going to do well and waste everyone's time and effort into the school to achieve quotas.
It is a matter of fact, that people with low-income but high-ability are mostly white people. These people will not be getting any help going to these colleges.
UCLA did this. They wanted to be more "inclusive" so they got a lot more blacks and hispanics to enroll. Guess what? The had way more diversity enrollment, but embarrassingly the same graduation rate for those minorities. What is the takeaway? You can pull the kids from the ghetto and put them in college, but you can't make them learn. They have never learned how to learn so they suffer against classmates who know how to study and grasp concepts. The solutions that universities have come up with are to create bullshit curriculums for minorities so they can graduate in /something/. This includes bullshit courses in women's studies, the trans track and black history. There is no academic rigor in these tracks and they often can be completed in a week with packet work. UNC was busted for these easy tracks by the NCAA because they were vehicles for getting dumb black athletes through with grades high enough to play athletics. The only way UNC escaped disqualification is that the courses /could/ be taken by anybody, but no serious student would spend their money on that shit.
By driving up poor people admissions (read: ethnic), the universities get to pat themselves on the back for job well done. But they won't talk about attrition of those students or their grades or level of rigor in their tracks (if they make it through). This is just a big marketing scheme to say "look, we care more".