- Most low-income students who have top test scores and grades do not even apply to the nation’s best colleges, according to a new analysis of every high school student who took the SAT in a recent year.
Here is an issue I am becoming sadly too familiar with and becoming more cynical as I go along. I can get into any college in the US at this point, and have at a few prestigious ones, but each time they fail to support me adequately financially. Do I assume that
A.) They have not set up a proper system for that, and the failures are bureaucratic, through mistakes?
B.) Is that the failing of the university for putting wealthy students first?
C.) Does the university not care about poorer students?
D.) Is it a malicious attempt to drive poorer students away?
E.) Have these universities put financial gain ahead of education? And then repeat for each university. I've been out of school for two years now due to a university doing this to me. I lose hope quite a bit each time something goes wrong. I hate the fact that I'm slowly dissuaded from what I consider a vital education for my well-being and happiness for the entirety of my life because I fear that it will happen no matter where I go. I drop 60 bucks on an application every year, hours to fill out all the proper paperwork, hours more to write the proper prompts thoughtfully, easily become accepted, and then go through heartbreak when the university fails to support me in any way. Are we poor not supposed to get educated? I feel I missed a cosmic joke where it's laughable that I'm even attempting to go to a good school since I'm poor, as if it's my fault for expecting universities to provide for me. I feel selfish for believing it. I feel foolish for believing I could remove myself from poverty with a degree and gain a salaried career to build on.
I don't mean to sound argumentative, so please take my questions as genuine inquiries: I never thought of college funding in this way. Where is it identified that Universities would do anything more than trade education and training for money? Are you implying that while able to gain admittance to these institutions, you have been unable to obtain academic or needs based scholarships to attend? I imagine there are individuals who care deeply about poorer students - and some that DON'T care about the income level of students, but as a whole, Universities either recruit, or don't recruit low income students (sounds like Amherst does). Look - higher ed is a MESS. My dad was a professor. His career is something from a bygone era. Professors are beat up, states no longer fund anything, federal funding for research is vaporizing. All of these things combine to make Universities tighten belts across the board. I wish I had an answer - but it's a big complicated mess. I guess I'll say this. If a student is talented and dedicated, he or she will get a degree. From my experience in the business world, WHERE you go to school matters a lot less than you think it might - sure, there are careers where it does matter - but for many, it just doesn't.go through heartbreak when the university fails to support me in any way.
I can get into any college in the US
C.) Does the university not care about poorer students?
It does matter where you go in a lot of cases-- not so much for the name recognition, but for the actual education you receive. I actually left California because the state schools there are an absolute mess, and from all reports I wouldn't receive much education there, but just a degree. And I was shit on by quite a few people who told me it wouldn't matter because at least if I went to Berkeley, I'd carry the Berkeley name. It doesn't feel right to me that if I'm going to spend tons of money and close to a decade of my life learning what I'm going to do for the rest of my life that I wouldn't be properly educated in my field. I want to do well and exceed, not merely have a school's name and pass by on that. You're right in that it's not outlined that schools should support me, they absolutely aren't obligated, but it certainly looks bad on a university that specifically caters only to those who can afford to go to them. It also implies a growing plutocracy in higher institutions, but regardless, it still isn't required. The issue arises for me when these schools make strong arguments that they are there specifically to help poor students get an education, where they seem to make it a major goal, and when it gets down to it, don't give estimates for what they'll give the student until too late and they're already in the school, or they give significantly less funding after the student has been attending for a year, or suddenly refuse to give funding at all after three years and require them to fund their final year entirely. That looks dreadful. That looks like intentional misleading to bring money in as opposed to educating student. I am able to gain admittance to any institution due to my high marks and writing abilities, but the financial aid that comes through the school, federal government, or scholarships does not necessarily come to me. Federal aid and school aid are actually linked more than they should be, so where the government may say my aid can be much, much higher, the schools can dictate how much of that federal aid to give to me (e.g. if cleared for federal aid at 20,000 a year, the school may choose to only grant 6,000 of it and 1,000 in institutional aid.) My scholarships are tough because most are based around high school seniors and not transfer students; and more, while my university marks I carry (the only thing I use) are flawless, my high school grades are not, so it makes scholarships more difficult. Note that this isn't directed as an attack at you, but at this concept, because it's seriously flawed. This includes a ton of assumptions. Say everything else fails. Scholarships don't provide enough, the school doesn't, the government doesn't, and whatever my family makes isn't enough to cover my costs. The general thought process is to 'bite the bullet and take a student loan', which we all know are a dreadful mess and run incredibly immorally, but it also rests on the assumption the family in question can receive a loan. Loans are granted on the parents credit, their amount they bring in, and what the student currently brings in. My family doesn't have high enough credentials for any of it. The system is built to help the rich and mid- to upper- middle class, not the lower-middle class or the poor. The reason it seems that they can make it 'through trials and determination' is because they have access to services that can help them. The poor don't have that. The poor stay poor. Incidentally (and on a more positive note), I may have found an institution that will support me at the university level. I'll find out in a few months, but if things really don't work out, this is basically my last chance.Are you implying that while able to gain admittance to these institutions, you have been unable to obtain academic or needs based scholarships to attend?
I guess I'll say this. If a student is talented and dedicated, he or she will get a degree.
You definitely will never ever pass by on life on a school's name. That is a fantasy, and I've never met a hiring manager who gives a shit where their employees come from. They care about whether they are suited to perform within the company. Going to an elite school helps one to develop good contacts, and that is its primary advantage (and a great one). One can go to a no name school and learn an equal amount to anywhere else. It is wholly dependent on the effort the student wants to put in.
I agree entirely. It's tough that the insistence that to school you go to matters is so prevalent. I still haven't heard the end of being berated over not going to a California school when the level of education is so low. I'd have loved to go to a prestigious college for the connections, but that honestly became such a low priority so early on when you start seeing the grand scheme of things.
I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree. Millions of people get degrees every year. They pay for them by working, borrowing, and getting some assistance - rarely just one of those. I'm sorry that you think it matters where you go to school for most careers. Anyone telling you different, is selling you something - like maybe an overpriced ivy league education. I'm also sorry that you think anything is owed to you. And if I'm the first person to tell you that, then I'm even more sorry. If your academics are as strong as you imply, you will get large portions of your education paid for. Yes, you might have to work to pay for the rest. And yes, you might have to take out a loan. Just like the rest of us not-so-smart people who managed to do it. All of that said - YES the system is jacked. YES the universities are messed up. YES college costs are exponentially growing. NO it's not fair. NO it's not easy to get an education when you're poor. but YES it is possible.
I would put a good chunk of the blame on the bureaucratic nature of most universities. I've been in a position where I had to work directly with administrative figures, and most of them have conflicting views on everything, and it's hard to get a straight answer from two people within the same department. There is just so much going on, both that's visible and essentially "backdoor" politics and dealing that it would make your head spin. It's possible to move out of poverty and all of that, but very difficult.
It's unbelievable. I know all the ins and outs of the politics universities now, the levels of administration, the correct leverage to put on different levels, who is best to threaten with what, how to move behind certain parts of the bureaucracy. Ironically, I became so good at it, I now work three jobs at the university that screwed me most, jobs that were originally student jobs, but I found ways to work around the system. They wouldn't help me when I wanted to give them a portion of my money, so they now give me their money instead. I'm quite liked within the administration now, and something of a legendary exception from the bureaucratic failures.