I'm from a family in the bottom income bracket, and I went to Stanford.
It's as alien and daunting as the article makes it sound. I would never have thought to apply if it weren't for a suggestion from my aunt who married rich. My high school guidance counselor was completely unhelpful, and she actively discouraged all of my peers who I wanted to apply with me (because "Stanford wants 1s and 2s," not people ranked 5th or 8th in the class). When I got in, I had to ask a relative to pay the $300 placeholder fee. My mother cried because she didn't believe that I could get full financial aid.
It was easy to spot the two other low-income students in my 100-person freshman dorm. We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did. It took me years to learn.
My sister was in the same position, but didn't have the blind ambition to ignore our hometown horror stories ("he was top of his class, but he went off to some fancy college and ended up flunking out..."). I convinced her to apply to several very prestigious schools. She was accepted, but went with a more modest, local one instead. She spent her freshman year interpreting every setback as a sign that she had overreached by going to a four-year university at all. It turned out fine, but she switched her plans from medical school to nursing by graduation.
It's hard to communicate to people who grew up with even modest privilege how much all of this matters. My worlds before and after Stanford feel entirely separate. The Internet helped, but I was like an archaeologist combing through relics of a long-dead culture. What counts as an Ivy? How did these schools have so many AP classes? Why did all of these people have SAT tutors -- weren't tutors for people who were behind?
Information matters. Culture matters. I was lucky, but a few well-placed text messages could absolutely replicate that luck. Even to just say, "We noticed you're a good student. You could go here. You could afford it. This is doable." Hearing that from any authority at all would be huge. Because when you're low-income or first-generation, everyone and everything in your life is constantly telling you the opposite.
Your comment is spot on and resonates profoundly with me. I'm also from a family in the bottom income bracket - my family were migrant farm laborers ever since we emigrated to the US when I was two. My outlook for college was dim and I didn't know anyone that had gone past a year or two at a local community college, certainly not in my family. It didn't help that I was raised in a tiny farming town of ~1500 people, devoid of many educational resources, with a similar background.
I also applied to and had interest from an elite school in the east coast but faced the financial burden (fees, traveling to a major city for face-to-face interview, etc) and lack of mentorship/guidance in HS to successfully pursue it. I was very fortunate however to earn a full ride scholarship to any in-state public university through a new program that was targeting students like myself, otherwise the financial aspect alone would have made it impossible. Not to mention the obstacles "navigating college" that you articulated so well.
I eventually earned my BFA and feel pretty fortunate to be in the position that I'm currently in. In the last few months, I reached out to the foundation that provided my scholarship and have started volunteering my time and story with students facing similar situations. I had always been very hesitant because I felt that there wasn't much I could offer, but the more I talk with students I'm reminded of what it was like when I was in their situation - just looking for someone that could provide a little bit of guidance and/or clarity.
I had a similar experience from a working class, 2nd income quartile household, with little contact with big cities or big universities.
SAT prep? Tutors? Private school? Scoring well on AP tests? These are unknown.
But as you say what matters most is information and role models. Many people from outside the upper middle class didn't know about other opportunities. And when they did know, they didn't even think about the opportunities because they didn't know anyone like themselves doing those things.
I was lucky to have parents that prioritized education, and a middle school teacher who took an interest in me and got me applying to some summer programs where I met kids who modeled a bunch of different possible paths.
It's important to make kids aware of opportunities. Then it's important to make sure they have role models and encouragement.
Your story really resonated with me. I think one of the biggest issue education / society has not adequately addressed is, even with a curious mind, as a teenager, you don't get too many chances to learn what is out there and what is possible. You have to know it exists to start looking. Unless you grew up in a certain household (generally higher income, educated) / environment / peer group that exposed you.
For example, I started coding in my early teens but I never really knew all the career paths it opened up until my twenties. My parents never showed me. My school never showed me. I ended up studying something unrelated in university.
I think it would be a huge boon to our collective future if schools focused more on showing students all the possibilities out there and supporting them to explore it, so they can discover their passions earlier and better maximize their potentials.
From 'shadow an employee' programs, counselling assistance, co-ed programs to extracurricular programs. Instead of letting them decide their future career paths (at least postsecondary choices) based on the limited subjects and materials they're learning in classrooms and what their parents and peers showed them (and did not show them) is possible.
>>We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did
I know exactly what you mean. Whenever I wanted to try something new, like apply to an internship, my brain tried really hard to convince me not to do it because I would get rejected. My subconscious tried really hard into making me a complete looser. To this day I sometimes have to tell it to shut up.
I come from the bottom of the bottom. I felt intimidated by everybody, especially those people that belonged to a higher income family. The good upbringing was noticeable.
I also come from a family in the low-income bracket. Despite being a top student in HS I had never heard of AP courses, SAT and I didn't know what the Ivies were outside of 'Harvard'. Unlike you I was not as fortunate, despite being gifted.
I ended up going to an 'ok' state school then couldn't attend graduate studies (despite being accepted to a top program) because I had to get an industry job to support my family. I saved up money, quit my job and now talking with a top 10 program about applying to their program. My story is still untold but I am optimistic about the future.
> We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did. It took me years to learn.
Please tell me everything about this. I teach at a community college and my students come from the middle class, the working class, and the place I can't see.
Not OP, but I'm not sure I follow your question. Are you asking to learn context about problems outside of your own class?
I was raised in a lower/middle/working class area and went to its local community college and could probably comment. Much of what OP described matches very closely to my own experiences.
Question for HN: (sorry to piggy back off of this comment)
I've also gone down a similar path to what OP described and I feel like I really want to help those growing up in similar environments (e.g. 1st generation college students, poor family, lack of guidance growing up, etc) but I'm not sure where to start.
I live in the Seattle area and I've heard about TEALS as an initiative to mentor high school level students and prepare them for computer science in college, but I'm not sure if this would be the best place to focus my efforts (main concern being whether I'll just be mentoring kids at the more well off high schools vs the schools that really need it).
There are programs like Big Brothers / Big Sisters. I've heard good things about this type of mentoring and you could make a difference for someone from a younger age probably.
Just wanted to say that I really appreciated this story. I was lower middle income but being from a war refugee family, public school was where we went to, and then to state college. I loved it but had no idea what private school life was like. Now I work at Stanford, and am constantly impressed by the high-achieving students.
I have to disagree. I feel very strongly that SAT tutors and training systems completely undermine the value of the test. The test is supposed to find students with a comprehensive knowledge and problem solving base, but instead, through the corruption of expensive tutors and programs is largely a test of how much money and time was spent preparing. Wealth buys you a higher score, and that is shameful considering how heavily that score is utilized in selection.
I'm really missing the point you are trying to make. People prepare for the SAT to get a better grade and you think it is unfair. WTF? Actually, I do get it I just think it is insane that you think it is a reasonable point, as if it were a moral imperative.
What I do not get is why you think this way. People are simply trying to improve their chances by studying and trying to get a better SAT. It baffles me that you think this is somehow corrupt.
Your point seems to be that poor people cannot prepare for the SAT because they do not have the resources. I agree, but I think you should instead focus on fixing poverty. How? I have no idea.
You cannot stop people from studying or preparing themselves to have an advantage over everybody else, that is just crazy thinking.
"Preserving the existing class structure" is not a design goal of the SAT, so to the extent that it does so, that is a problem. A test that didn't have this property would be a better test.
However, I don't think all is lost. Most of the wealthy's advantage is the fact that they actually practice taking the test. It's not clear why poor people don't avail themselves of this perfectly attainable advantage (frankly, how can they consider a few hours of their time more valuable than the many tens of thousands of dollars of scholarships on offer?), but they don't seem to do it. To fix this, let's get more poor kids to take the practice tests. I'm doing that in a very small way. When asked for advice, I tell poor kids and family members to practice, practice, practice. I tell rich kids there's nothing they can do...
I agree with you. Poor people not studying for the test is a problem with culture. It is the crappy culture they have learnt from their parents that is keeping them down. The parents don't know any better or don't care and henceforth they never push their kids to prepare for those test.
Oh yeah, I had a conversation with a less-wealthy parent on this topic within the last couple of months. I got the impression she was searching for some sort of secret or hack. I told her that the student should take a couple of practice tests and grade them herself so as to understand what happened. She didn't believe that would do any good, even though she sought my advice specifically because I got 35/36 on ACT several decades ago.
Going to an Ivy League school does not help the student earn more money compared to going to a non-Ivy, except for students from certain disadvantaged backgrounds.
"students, who were accepted into elite schools, but went to less selective institutions, earned salaries just as high as Ivy League grads."
The exceptions are students who are black, Latino, low-income, or first-generation college attendees. I understand that these populations are a minority in the Ivy League, but they easily combine to be a majority of the country.
So we could more accurately say that Ivies help students earn higher salaries, except for students from certain privileged backgrounds.
Minor tangent: how strongly does the minority component factor into this, versus the low-income and first-generation components? In other words, does this still apply to high-income, second-generation black and Latino college attendees?
There is definitely quite a bit of overlap as minorities are more likely to be low-income, first-generation college students. When taking that into account it's not clear that those groups form a majority of the population.
There's also the argument that especially as a physician you have the obligation to your patients to do the best job you can. It's true for any profession but for physicians it's hard to see why anyone would object the reasoning. The difference between a top-25 school and anything else is like day and night, the students, the faculty, the equipment, the exposure to current research, and it's still true even though it may not be reflected in compensation.
I'm not too sure about that. I spent several years working closely with a massive group of physicians (40+ in the same specialty), where I routinely had to check medical reports before they went to clients.
While all very bright people, many of the physicians that attended middle-of-the-road medical schools and even one that went to a Caribbean medical school were much better than the couple Harvard trained docs we had.
This is a really broad statement, with bold claims like:
The difference between a top-25 school and anything else is like day and night
With no citations or supporting evidence. Nor is a Top-25 school defined, is it a Top-25 school in the US overall, or is it in that specific field, etc? Cause there are programs at Ivy League schools that turn out below average civil engineers, which I have had the pleasure of interacting with. I would thus make an educated guess that this would apply to other schools as well, meaning you should do research on the ground to know what kind of education your going to be getting, since transferring colleges isn't quick or painless.
It's always interesting watching discussions of class come up on HN. As someone who comes from a working class background/family, it astounds me how often people will respond with the idea that the tech industry/any kind of(generally college) education is some kind of meritocracy, or that the solution is to simply 'work harder'. Those are certainly nice sentiments, but far from reality(See, the Myth of Meritocracy[0]), and I'm overjoyed to see that others in this thread are providing other narratives and social situations.
Don't know what you're talking about. Most of my colleagues got into the industry by going to open/free events and using materials which can be found freely on the internet.
I came from a lower middle class family with a host of awful circumstances I won't go into. I learned most of what I needed to get a job through reading Wikipedia. A friend of mine and I did odd jobs for neighbourhood companies (and got screwed a lot) until he landed an entry level position at a web shop. A year later he was working at a different company and had them bring me in for an interview.
The prerequisite for getting into my industry, at least until some asshole decides to regulate it, is any home computer manufactured in the last decade (you can get a core 2 duo machine, a monitor, and a keyboard for about 20 bucks today), and a desire to work.
Today I can easily demand a six-figure salary and I've only been working full time for about two and a half years. Many people who are not as good as I am can get less after more working years. That is at least somewhat meritocratic.
On one hand, I hear breathless reassurances from people like Frank Bruni (also at the Times) that "school doesn't matter" and "college is what you make it". At the same time, we get articles like these.
Now, as someone pursuing CS at a second or maybe even third tier institution - which is it?
The "tier" thing pisses me off. Lots of "top tier" people go to "third tier" universities for various reasons. Eg, financial, family commitments, non-traditional circumstances, etc.
I was accepted to a top tier CS uni, but did not get financial aid. I came from a blue collar family with parents born in the depression era. So we saved every penny. Every dime my parents had went into paying off their (tiny) mortgage on their (equally tiny) house. Yet, back in the 80s, that was counted as an asset in the financial aid process. So I ended up going to a 2nd/3rd tier local state university on an academic scholarship, then a top tier place for grad school (fully funded).
It all worked out in the end, and I wound up at Google. While there, they tried to get me to go on a recruiting trip to my grad school. I demurred, and said I'd prefer to go to my undergrad school. So they signed me up to do outreach to long tail universities. Rather than sending people on site, like for Stanford, MIT, etc, this turned out to be a Google hangouts chat with multiple different state universities. It was better than nothing, but it was nothing like the effort they put into recruiting from the "top tier" places. I think they may be missing a lot of good people.
Google definitely lets top tier employees slip right through their hiring process, as does basically every other company. Is Google going to be reaching out often to students at universities near their campus locations? Probably not, and definitely not with the intensity that they go after students at first tier universities with middling CS programs.
Where you get your degree from is important, and will change your prospects of getting hired (eg. Many companies won't hire UBC graduates, even though they do better than candidates from tier 1 universities). Hopefully their loss & the graduate's gain, since there are likely other major issues lurking under the surface with many of those companies that self select not to hire those candidates.
#1. You are average of 5 peers you hang out with (a good thumb rule).
#2. There is a huge valley between Software Engineering vs Computer Science (what is your goal here.)
For #1. meet-ups and getting programmer mentor is good idea.
If you really want to do pure CS, there is no alternative to college, but for Software Gig, a good programmer mentor gives better direction than College/University.
edit: this advice is primarily for second/third tier universities or comparing with them.
Top company internships certainly HELP, but you are really aren't that far behind if you don't get them.
Getting a job right out of college is hard. Everyone is looking for a year of experience.
But once you get that FIRST job, things are smooth sailing. I never got recruitment message in college, but after I had graduated, and was working for a year, I starting getting multiple every week.
Top company jobs, are of course awesome. But if you don't get them right out of college, you can pretty easily do it after a year or 2 of working in the industry in SF.
My biggest concern is salary trajectory. For instance, a converting intern at FB gets $75-125K signing over a normal new grad hire (just an example, less applicable to me specifically).
I graduated from a second-tier university in a small eastern-european university and did find internship opportunities in SV so I can assert with confidence: your options are what you make of them with your own skills, aptitude and attitude.
I accepted an offer for the summer from a company that doesn't recruit at my school anymore.
But my options still pale in comparison to what people at top tier schools have. Sad to say my overall salary trajectory is probably going to suffer because of it when I look fulltime.
I mean, I'd wager most of them intern at top tier places multiple years, whereas I'm only going to intern in a big company for one summer. I'd be surprised if they didn't at all, honestly.
I didn't manage to land any interviews at "top" companies when I was in college, but I think that was largely because I applied way too late (apparently for companies like Google,FB, etc, you need to apply by like November of the year before for internships). However, I do know other people who managed to get Amazon, Microsoft, and Google internships even though they didn't interview at our school, so there seems to be some way to get in by applying yourself.
I've heard from one person that they managed to get an interview at FB by first getting an internship at Amazon so you can try that. I suspect this is how I got my interviews (for full time positions though) at Google/FB as well.
Google was at the career fair at my university. I went and talked to them. They said apply online. I did that, did phone interviews and got an internship.
So at least for Google, they don't need to come to your college.
Top companies get tens of thousands of resumes from undergrads. They actively recruit mostly at only a few prestigious schools because it's an easy filter for candidates without job histories and therefore lacking strong signals. If you're not going to one of the schools they care about you need to be able to give a really good reason why you should stand out.
It used to be tech was all about skill and nothing else mattered. Netscape, Microsoft, etc had lots of people with zero university - you just had to be able to code.
But something has changed since then. Now the big companies primarily hire from "target" schools - much like how finance does it.
Skill is still heavily in demand and a non top tier school isn't a deal breaker. But your working up hill.
Definitely, the major change has been Universities monetizing this whole segment of untapped market, whereby they can get 4 paid years of tuition from the average student, where before all these people were bypassing their educational system.
Same deal with bootcamps, just much shorter timelines and larger margins. Its an industry that allows HR and managers to easily make decisions about hiring, even though hiring is like judging wine, some years at some schools produced much better talent than others, and that talent has (hopefully) improved since then... and small unknown vineyards can produce amazing stuff.
I don't really think it matters. I grew up in government housing as a child, lived in a very violent city all the way through high school, in an area ranked the least educated in the US. I just worked hard, made the right choices, didn't do anything too stupid (or didn't get caught ;-)), and kept at it, studied, building skills. Got an undergraduate and graduate degree from UT Dallas. Started at Amazon shortly after, went from a junior dev to a senior dev in 3 years. Nobody ever cared which school I went to. Mostly I feel like I got lucky, but hard work, ritual, and repetition matter more than which particular school ones goes to, I think.
during those 3 years, did you continue learning mostly at work? Or outside? (ie programming languages, systems design, etc.)? Or was it basically "I never brought work to home."?
I mostly stayed focused on work... that's why I stopped working on http://ihackernews.com and other side projects.
I worked probably 60 to 80 hours a week -- because I wanted to, not because I was forced. Managers actually asked me to work less.
I learned at lot at Amazon (across retail and AWS) so I didn't feel the need to keep up the level of studying I did prior to working at Amazon. Reading code reviews and watching email lists is a great way to learn and Amazon has really good internal emailing lists.
3 years at Amazon practically makes you a piece of the furniture there! That puts you well into the top 10% of employees by length of employment. Good job in surviving what most can't!
You're not going to work for big brand companies in Silicon Valley, because they use alma mater as one of the few legal mass filters.
That's not the end of the world. Learn, enjoy, don't be an asshole, build bridges to other people, and work hard and you'll be fine.
There's a saying/proverb that I'll butcher... a lily is an incredibly beautiful flower, but it only grows in the muck at the edge of the lake. Be the lily.
Well, get the best grades you can. Master algorithms and data structures. Then apply for the jobs you want. If that fails, apply and go to grad school at a top tier University. Everything else will work out. Promise.
I'll answer the over-arching theme of your question, and then your actual concrete questions.
I'm a self-taught programmer (started freelancing/interning in high school). I then attended a second/third rate institution for undergrad and first rate institution for my phd. I have peer groups from all three of those educational experiences, so I have a unique perspective on this question.
My perspective is that a CS degree maybe isn't worth it (and/or you should get the cheapest one possible) if you're content in a job with an average salary in a regional job market that isn't NYC/SV/Seattle.
If you have higher ambitions (engineering leadership, a job at a competitive employer, much higher than average salary at stable company, research, consulting, uniquely intellectually stimulating work, etc.), things change.
With respect to all of the above career goals, attending a first-rate university is tremendously helpful. First rate universities really do provide education, resources, and peer groups that are all substantially different in kind from the education you'll receive at a second/third rate institution. You'll be treated differently in the job market. That treatment will be rendered for unfair reasons, but will probably be fair treatment -- if you apply yourself even a little, you really will be better prepared to tackle tough problems.
With respect to all of the above career goals, second/third rate universities really are exactly what you make of them. You should treat it as 3-4 years to develop a portfolio of interests, skills, and projects without having to explain why you spent your early twenties un/under-employed.
Now, with respect to your actual questions:
> that "school doesn't matter"
School matters. Sorry, it does. You'll get access to recruiters, and they'll care a lot more about getting you in for an interview. Everything is a little bit easier. You still have to pull some weight, but getting in the door is so much easier. I tried it both ways. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it.
Someone without a top university behind their name -- or any uni degree at all -- can do anything someone with those things can do. Especially in our field. But it will be tremendously more difficult.
> and "college is what you make it".
That said, college, and all school is always what you make of it. But there's a catch. Not all hard work is equal in value, and not all valuable hard work is noticed. Top schools will try to show you how to do valuable work. They will make sure 100% that valuable hard work is noticed. However, it's still on you to do the hard work part.
I realise in a sense this is not a particularly nice thought, but:
> Colleges and universities need to join forces to encourage poor, high-achieving students to attend top-flight schools and nudge accepted students to enroll. Doing the right thing for students has never been so cheap.
Do they?
Competition is so high, however cheap it is, I can't see any upside for the university other than image. And that image is unlikely to do anything for their 'traditional' full-fee-paying applicant base.
A while back, the Economist said, "a dumb rich kid has a much better chance at attending an elite school than a brilliant poor kid." If a university is to maintain the goal of admitting smart students, then this would be a step toward that.
Saying that the goal of a university is to pay the bills is saying nothing; everyone needs to pay the bills. That's not a goal, it's a means.
Bridging the gap between brilliant students and expensive education is why colleges and universities have endowments, and high sticker prices in the first place. The richest students overpay so the university can bring in smart students who aren't rich.
Good students from poor backgrounds have a better grasp of many social problems than people without experience of them, and are thus in a position to make a significantly greater economic contribution, to the benefit of all including the university. The university is an organ of society, not an end in itself.
Have you seen any disembodied brains running things? No, the brain only exists within the whole body and the health of the body is tightly correlated with the health of the brain. The social body is a holographic reflection of the individual body.
I think the argument goes something like: the well-off will do well no matter what, but if only knowledge is standing in the way of helping the poor achieve their full potential, it is a goal worth pursuing for the benefit of society.
A better off student coming from either wealth or parents with college experience have more resources from their families and peers in figuring out the logistics in going to college. How to get housing, financial aid, how to sign up for classes, etc.
A student who is poor or without the support and knowledge base of their family and peers must figure out all of this on their own. It was already stressful for me to figure out when I attended college, and I was in a pretty good position.
So there is a disparity which isn't based on the academic admission standards of the university, but on the students economic and social background. Providing additional support is a pretty cheap way to alleviate that disparity. The university will now get more higher quality students to attend.
Universities are non-profit organizations that have a responsibility to maximize the social benefits of their work. Helping rich people does not merit public subsidy.
For most people, going to elite schools is a waste of money. For example, a high achieving student from a lower middle class family who goes to Harvard still pays the equivalent of full tuition and fees at an average state school, while they can often get a full ride at a state school.
Obviously there are a lot of ways an elite education can help you, but most people don't want to be a lawyer or go into business.
It's implied in the article that the opposite is true.
Certain elite schools cover tuition, room and board, and occasionally supplies for low-income students through merit-based scholarships [1] even for out-of-state students, while many state schools can only afford to grant fewer full-rides, and usually only covering the in-state price -- with out-of-state being significantly more expensive.
This doesn't mean that low-income students at elite schools still won't struggle with expenses [2] or fitting in [3]. But anecdotally, when I was a top-performing high school graduate from a well-ranked high school in the mid-2000s, this information was even harder to find, so I, and many of my peers opted for state schools instead, some with scholarships.
But much of this information asymmetry still exists today. This is what this effort is trying to rectify.
You are not necessarily in disagreement with IslaDeEncanta, as they said "lower middle class", not "low-income". What exactly constitutes "middle class", and even "lower middle class" is not clear. But, I think, most would agree "low income" means not middle class, so you're probably talking about different sets of people.
You're right. I wasn't really talking about people in poverty/near poverty. They can benefit from the network involved with an Ivy more than just about anyone, because they usually don't have a network at all.
Everyone talks about the networking but this can't possibly be true for everyone. What if you're just not good at networking? And do poor kids on scholarships get accepted by their yacht-class peers?
My friend had subsidized tuition at Columbia, and IIRC their cutoff at the time (2009-2013) for household income was $100k. If it's a similar figure at other schools, I guess you could decide on some sort of demarcation around there.
No. Someone from the lower middle class would have nearly all their room, board, and tuition taken care of, with maybe 10k in low interest federal loans.
It's folks in the area around ~$100k who get hosed.
It was cheaper for me to attend both Columbia and Vanderbilt (transferred from latter to former) as undergrad than it would have been to attend any state school. No merit scholarships, purely needbased financial aid based on family income of ~$70k, and total cost for 4 years was about $20k in federal student loans.
I believe the situation for law school is substantially different but am not an export.
He notes this would have been true for his undergraduate education too, but he wouldn't have considered it for social/psychological reasons. He notes that his friends are stuck in the same bind, and it was a shock for him to even consider applying to Yale.
Harvard isn't a good example, they offer tremendous financial aid. If your household income is less than $65,000 (which could count as lower middle class), you pay nothing. By their figures 90% of households in America would pay less for Harvard than for a state school. [0]
There are many private colleges with a higher "sticker price" than Harvard but with a much lower discount rate (i.e. what the average student pays is much closer to that sticker price).
While it wasn't explicit in the article, it seems the focus here was much more on poor and working class communities with high performers. Students from those places able to get into top tier institutions are unlikely to be paying much if anything for their tuition.
Harvard is always worth it. There are innumerable advantaged with that paticular school. Having that name on a resume keeps it near the top of most any pile. The old boys (and girls) network radiating from that school is beyond statistics. Harvard opens doors.
What makes a top-ranked institution better than a "second-tier" school? The kind of applicant who would do well in the former will certainly do well in the latter.
The top-ranked institutions and "second-tier" schools charge about the same tuition but often have more generous financial aid so it can be cheaper to attend. Even if the sticker price would be the same for you, value of your degree is partially based on the reputation of the school so the top-ranked institution's degree is worth more.
Even if they will do as well in either and achieve the same learning outcomes, having a top-ranked school on your resume has value as a signal. And the alumni network has value as well.
I agree, but you would graduate with a better network, better branding, and possibly better skills from the top tier school, all of which have very real impact on the job market.
the 'crossover point' is different for everyone. e.g., would you rather be a 60th percentile student at a top-tier, or 90th percentile at a second-tier? (for some fuzzy, ill-defined definition of 'percentile') everyone needs to decide for themselves. as one oversimplified caricature, maybe it's still really hard to get an interview at your top-choice company even if you're 90th percentile at a second-tier school, but even the slackers who barely crawled to graduation at a top-tier school gets that same job interview.
My girlfriend worked in college access with low-income students last year and used the same service used in the referenced UVA study [1] to advise and connect with students. SignalVine seems to have a big head start in this space, although both deployments I know about were in the Boston area - maybe there are other regional competitors (I wasn't able to find any through Googling, though).
Naiively, the application looks to me like just a nice web frontend with auth and scheduling features, with an SMS provider for a backend (Twilio or similar). Seems like some enterprising hacker could break into this space with a cheaper product - SignalVine is pricey, especially for small nonprofits on tight budgets.
It's as alien and daunting as the article makes it sound. I would never have thought to apply if it weren't for a suggestion from my aunt who married rich. My high school guidance counselor was completely unhelpful, and she actively discouraged all of my peers who I wanted to apply with me (because "Stanford wants 1s and 2s," not people ranked 5th or 8th in the class). When I got in, I had to ask a relative to pay the $300 placeholder fee. My mother cried because she didn't believe that I could get full financial aid.
It was easy to spot the two other low-income students in my 100-person freshman dorm. We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did. It took me years to learn.
My sister was in the same position, but didn't have the blind ambition to ignore our hometown horror stories ("he was top of his class, but he went off to some fancy college and ended up flunking out..."). I convinced her to apply to several very prestigious schools. She was accepted, but went with a more modest, local one instead. She spent her freshman year interpreting every setback as a sign that she had overreached by going to a four-year university at all. It turned out fine, but she switched her plans from medical school to nursing by graduation.
It's hard to communicate to people who grew up with even modest privilege how much all of this matters. My worlds before and after Stanford feel entirely separate. The Internet helped, but I was like an archaeologist combing through relics of a long-dead culture. What counts as an Ivy? How did these schools have so many AP classes? Why did all of these people have SAT tutors -- weren't tutors for people who were behind?
Information matters. Culture matters. I was lucky, but a few well-placed text messages could absolutely replicate that luck. Even to just say, "We noticed you're a good student. You could go here. You could afford it. This is doable." Hearing that from any authority at all would be huge. Because when you're low-income or first-generation, everyone and everything in your life is constantly telling you the opposite.