How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

Elite colleges are not necessarily the place to get the best life prep

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/books/review-in-where-you-go-is-not-who-youll-be-frank-bruni-examines-college-admissions-mania.html?_r=0

This is especially true for wealthier Americans and "elite" institutions, where admission is seen more as a status symbol (like a Tesla or a LV bag) rather than a vehicle for educating and cultivating a young person for the benefit of society (a university's true mission). But actually, the data suggest that graduates of elite schools do not have significantly better life outcomes on the whole vs. graduates from "moderate" state schools. Sure, there are some segments where your pedigree really matters, but do you want to spend the rest of your life in those circles, surrounded by pompous pricks (some snobby corners of tech, Wall Street, etc.)?

And of course two major drawbacks of attending an elite private school are (1) debt and (2) a more bubble experience (your peers will be more homogeneous, and you may not get exposure to many real-life challenges that help a student thrive in the adult world). Also, some students may feel complacent that admission is the endpoint - they made it. Life is just about marketing yourself and jumping through the hoops to earn some administrator's approval, and then you're on easy street.

But admission is actually just the start - students should be driven to maximize their precious opportunity and realize that it is just a first step along a path that has many greater challenges and learnings ahead. Students may feel entitled ("I'm going to have a degree from Yale - of course the top employers will want me, I'm so awesome!"), and then lose focus (or even get lazy) - while other similarly-talented students snubbed by the Ivies might have a chip on their shoulder, rededicating themselves at a state school to be the best they can be. And let's be honest - undergrad chemistry or econ at Harvard vs. Texas will be taught at about the same quality (and probably not much better than Coursera). The concepts and knowledge are identical - it's just how motivated the student is to think critically, set healthy goals, and apply the learnings productively. Upon graduation, which student will likely have more grit and tenacity to succeed in the workplace? Savvy employers know that character/fortitude is way more important than pedigree to help the org succeed.

Some other sick facts about the perverted system:

• In some cases, families are paying admissions "coaches" $50K and starting at age 12 to get their resume in good enough shape to be competitive. Just imagine what message that is sending to the kid for what is required to get ahead.
• Stanford set the record recently for a 5% undergrad admissions rate. Now the bar has moved so of course the Ivies will try to match. They often do this by advertising to students with good metrics, but low chance of admission (maybe no legacy or not from the right demos). This helps puff up their "exclusivity rating" by making the median scores of their applicants look better, while lowering their admissions rates. And as we know from Apple, exclusivity begets disproportionate interest, even if the underlying product doesn't merit it.
• Many administrators and admissions officers know that the system has gone off the rails and want to fix it, but they fear that they will be the only one and then be at a disadvantage vs. their rivals who perpetuate the misguided process.

Student suicides at Gunn High in Silicon Valley

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201501290900

3 student suicides this academic year (one was a recent alum), and 9 since 2009. Most of the cases had some element of stress/pressure to meet very high academic expectations. I didn't hear the whole program, but an interesting comment from a former teacher said a peer counseling class and less stressful vocational courses (like wood shop) were recently eliminated to make room for more AP courses.

The school is considering modifying the class schedule and homework levels, but I think those are just band-aids. Failing to meet the sometime ludicrous and frankly perverse expectations/goals in that community is not an indication that the student is a failure at life and should die. I would hope that the rabid competition and obsession to achieve (or fit some template of what success looks like) do not overwhelm students and make them forget that there are other ways to feel happy and successful in this life. That message has to start with adults, who should encourage balance over excess and set healthy examples that Silicon Valley Values are not the only values in the world.

Virginia campus rape case appears to have major holes

It appears that key facts of the UVA rape accuser's story are likely incorrect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

Like Duke Lacrosse, this may be a case of an exuberant prosecutor/journalist taking major shortcuts and skipping due diligence in order to score a home run. And shame on Rolling Stone editors who should know better. As other articles have said, this is a terrible blow for victim's rights, because it muddies the waters and casts unnecessary doubt on the thousands of cases that are valid and watertight. I believe that the accuser did suffer some sexual crime in her time at UVA, and she deserves justice for that, but her lies and exaggerations have hurt her chances and an entire movement, which is unacceptable.

I understand the sensitivity and need to maybe keep the accused's name secret, so as to not tip him off that a big RS article is being written about him and his frat. You would think that RS would at least check that (a) such a party occurred on the night in question, (b) other witnesses saw Jackie at that party and later saw injuries to her, and (c) Jackie was reliable and did not have any clear motives to lie or defame Drew and his frat. I am fairly sure that Phi Psi men have done bad things in the past, but it's also unfair on them to be singled out this way (their house was vandalized and I am sure they have had to deal with a lot of grief over this story). But all this underscores the need for victims to get real evidence, and testimony is not enough. If her assault did occur, she should have quickly gone to the authorities (if campus police wouldn't hear her out, then the local PD) and got a medical exam. She should have consulted with a lawyer and gotten her parents (and their resources) on board. This is not "blaming the victim", but instead making sure victims minimize their chances for injustice to occur. It's often a loaded deck against them, so they can't afford to be careless with their cases.

This is what I wrote initially: Maybe there are some imbalanced women who do cry wolf and just want attention, but if there is even 1% legit victims out there from all the accusations, I think rape is one of those subjects where over-reactions is totally warranted. I hope people don't lose sight of that, and don't let past false claims prejudice future accusations. However, we probably should consider the context: if the accused is a wealthy person who can be extorted, if the accuser's story isn't able to be triangulated, the situation of the prosecutor/reporter, etc.

Rape is still way too large of a preventable problem in our society for comfort (like racism, and gun violence, and poverty among others).

Campus sexual assault - an indictment of the college system and US society?

The Cosby stuff was bad enough, but this just made me want to puke:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119?page=5

College sexual assault has been in the news fairly often in the last few years, and unfortunately the stories keep getting worse. The issue may affect a shocking 1/10 to 1/4 of all college women in the US. It got so bad that Obama had to address the nation about it this year, and 76 problem schools are under investigation (and let's remember that rapes still happen on the exempt campuses too).

Unfortunately rape has been with us since the dawn of humanity, and I don't know if our current justice system has processes and harsh enough penalties on the books to properly deter it. But what also really bothers me is the attitude of the "enablers" or bystanders that let this criminality persist (or even suppress/cover it up). As the RS article described, some students seemed more concerned about the "reputation" of frats and UVA over the welfare of the victims (and justice/human decency). "Keep your mouth shut, or you will find yourself an outcast and give our school a bad name." Unfortunately, we've heard about the same crap in the military and Catholic church (and the Paterno-Sandusky tragedy).

There is a Senate bill aimed to hold college admins more accountable and increase punishments. There is also backlash from big, brave, anonymous voices on social media about this. They piss and moan, blame the victim, and such. Maybe there are some imbalanced women who do cry wolf and just want attention, but if there is even 1% legit victims out there from all the accusations, I think rape is one of those subjects where over-reactions is totally warranted. There are some mitigating circumstances where a defendant can justify a theft, lie, or even murder. But rape is 100% unjustifiable, end of story. I know our discussion group tries to be open to diverse opinions and ambiguity, but I really don't see how that is possible here. A person is not going to die without sex. No bad will come to young lovers if she is a bit tipsy tonight and he tries to make his move another time. The only costs are their "reputation" among peers and how they may measure up to juvenile notions of manliness (warped by media and unchecked by other adults who should know better).

The US rightfully slams fundamentalist Muslim societies for how they abuse women, and we were all disgusted by the stories coming out of India. But are we any better? I would say that the US is fairly strong on child protections, but what about women - who are 50% of our country? I know the vast majority of women are treated decently by men and thankfully never have to go through this hell. But just 1 case is too many.

What is even more disturbing is that these incidents happen at college, and often at good schools. College is where our best and brightest learn to be productive adults, where America (and the world's) future is being cultivated. I don't mean to be a prude, tisk tisking our young people for being so much worse than we were. I regret how I misbehaved, goofed off, and didn't fully capitalize on my precious time in school. Maybe this horrible stuff was going on but kept under raps when we were students, or maybe it is actually worse now. Technology makes casual sex a lot easier (or at least more visible) for young people, and egotism, hedonism, and entitlement seem to be bigger issues with Millennials vs. Gen X'ers (maybe I'm biased).

College is becoming more and more of a haves vs. have-nots game, and fierce competition (or family/wealth connections) make it more about status than learning/meritocracy, so these factors could be exacerbating the problem. "You are a UVA man and a Kappa Sig man; the world is your oyster and no one can hold you back." Just like the celebs that some kids idolize. And these folks will graduate, go to work, and perpetuate the attitude to their kids. Maybe some will actually mature and teach others from their experience (if I could, there is hope for anyone).

Sorry that I keep repeating TR's quote, but it keeps being relevant! At college, we educate kids in book knowledge, but not about life and morals. Well to be honest, I wouldn't want most university employees to teach my kids about those subjects (but they could hire qualified "life coaches" instead). Also, coddling parents may cry foul if the school dares to insinuate that their perfect angels don't already know how to behave. Most airline passengers are not a danger, but everyone still has to go through the metal detector. So even if many college kids are pretty mature and know how to treat others, unfortunately there are still bad apples in the bunch, so everyone has to go through training - sorry. What we learn in college is mostly useful for grad school, but is really not that valuable for the rest of our lives. Therefore, why waste our kids' precious time on that, and instead teach them about life? It's such a wasted opportunity if all they get are equations, exams, football, and spring break. I am not well versed in the classics and ancient Greece, but isn't the origin of the university system rooted in philosophy, ethics, and such? The humanities are dying at US colleges, but maybe we should bring some of that back in order to avoid generation after generation of "menaces to society." Maybe then, kids would learn about and practice empathy, respect, and honor, instead of becoming the next Wolf of Wall Street. Maybe then we'll come to value or fellow humans over peer pressure, ego, and tribalism.

I think most of us (especially men) would agree that we were kind of idiotic assholes at age 18-20. Maybe that is just the natural growing up process, and we have a lot of bad social influences. Is 18 too young for American kids to go off on their own to school? Maybe we should have post-secondary, gender-segregated, college prep for 2 years like the Europeans do? Because it's a dangerous time when you get a lot of adult rights and freedoms, but you are still operating on juvenile judgment and experience. This is nothing new, but clearly we haven't figured it out yet if thousands of women's lives continue to get ruined, during what should be a great time in their lives. Zero tolerance for Greek orgs (who really provide no constructive value to colleges or greater society) - one rape conviction or other serious crime, and they are banned from the school for a decade. Three convictions nationwide and the frat is shut down for good.

I know I sound like a square, and I really wish it didn't have to come to this, but if Americans behave like children and savages, then unfortunately we should be treated as such until we show improvement.

Measuring the Return on Investment (ROI) of College

http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013

I think the study's methodology is weak and does not prove causation. For the "return" part of ROI, they look at the median pay of grads for 30 years of working, adjusted to 2013 dollars. They project out pay increases by looking at grads from 1983 to 2012 (i.e. the earlier grads are later in their careers, and forecast what recent grads will earn at the same age). But of course that is fraught with problems, because universities could change a lot in quality and student composition over 30 years. And the economy changes a lot over time, so an older person may see very different wage changes from 1990-2010 vs. a recent grad from 2010-2030 (especially for degrees that saw a lot of industry growth or contraction). Also, I am not sure if they were looking at total earnings or just base pay, because we know that some jobs may have lower base pay but make up for it with better benefits, equity, or pensions. Students who went on to graduate/professional education were excluded, but that could be a problem too since some universities have a high % of students with those career aspirations (and those jobs tend to pay higher).

Also, are we measuring the ROI of the school, or the ROI of the students? University is not the only factor determining a person's future salary. Some Stanford students would still make similar money if they attended higher or lower ranked schools because of their abilities and ambition. But that is what the study should try to answer - if Joe Smith went to Cal vs. Stanford vs. Caltech and studied the same subject and pursued the same career path, how would his pay differ? This would be expensive and maybe unfeasible, but to control for student quality variation, they should have looked at each decile of US high school students (by general aggregated admission criteria), mapped out which college they attended, and then looked at their earnings over the first 5 years after graduation (30 years is overkill, entails too much uncertainty, and recent grad wages are a good predictor of late career wages anyway). But still, variation in regional pay and career choices would still confound the results.

This info would be tough to obtain as well, but possibly a cleaner way to answer the question would be to query employers. Do their compensation departments place a premium on various schools for certain job roles? Same with grad schools - do they give bonus points to students who went to undergrad at certain places (and convert that to a $ value)? Also repaying student loans has an opportunity cost, and there is value in the networking and relationships that one obtains in college. So it would be nice if they could incorporate those factors into their model as well. What do you think?

-----------

In this case, though, it's a little hard to separate out the reputation effects vs. the quality of education vs. network effects.

I.e. do Stanford kids earn more money because we graduate with a good education or because of the Stanford name premium or because we just happened to make friends at a school where there is a lot of smart people.

If it's because of the quality of education, then you could say Stanford is worth it. If it's because of the network effects, then maybe yes maybe no. An expensive networking program for sure, but maybe not replicable by any other experience (and thus worth it). If it's the reputation effect, then Stanford should be concerned, as companies could potentially test for real skills some day, undercutting the reputational aspect of our degree.

------------

I agree that those factors are heavily linked in such a data set and it's pretty hard to draw any meaningful conclusions about ROI.

Another interesting question: are Stanford students successful because they went to Stanford, or is Stanford successful because of its students? I am sure it is symbiotic, but maybe that is why the top US schools have been locked in an "arms race" to recruit star profs, improve the student experience, etc. to woo the top talent. I guess they realize that a key to their success is the general quality of their "customer base" (but the spending is also partly irrational pissing contest). Though I am pretty sure that most students accepted at Stanford would become professionally successful no matter what university they attend (a testament to the merits of the admission process), even dropping out and going Zuck style. But if Stanford and say Ole Miss (sorry for offending any alum) do a "trading places" student body swap, I think that plenty of Ole Miss students would not be able to capitalize on the Stanford experience as effectively, leading to lower outcomes. And if the avg. quality of one's peers decreases, that may have negative effects on one's performance. But on the flipside, the sudden infusion of Stanford-caliber students to Ole Miss would have profound benefits for that institution on many levels.

So I guess college students should have much more bargaining power vis-a-vis university administrators. They could form a union haha and demand lower tuition or face a walk-out. But that threat is not credible, unless all of them can join startups the next year, or the Ivy League is able to take in the thousands of striking Stanford students en masse. Plus Stanford would replace them with eager "scab" students from US public schools and Asia - probably lower quality students, but "passable" to keep the place running. Therefore, it seems that the top schools are engaged in a certain degree of price fixing and cartelization (i.e. why is the tuition at Stanford pretty similar to that of Carnegie Mellon or Columbia, despite massive geographic and programmatic cost differences?). Unlike Wall St. and Si. Valley, they refuse get in a self-destructive price war, or steal away top talent from each other with cash/other incentives. Maybe that is illegal, but if absolute student body quality is the goal (as it pertains to national rankings or other metrics that administrator bonuses are based on), then it's worth it (and their endowments can justify it). But really, just imagine how that would affect recruiting if Stanford decided to slash its tuition by 1/3? 50% of undergrads are on some sort of financial aid anyway, so it wouldn't be such a shock to their finances. Well, no one ever suggested that higher education was an efficient market. :)

Good discussion on Penn State scandal

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201207240900

I took a class from the guest on this radio show (Cal sports sociology prof and 49ers consultant Harry Edwards) when I was in high school and he is really insightful (C - were you in that course with me too?). He described how PSU football has become "too big to fail" (biggest student body and alum network in the US, one of the most famous football programs, huge $, TV contracts, scholarships, etc.), and there are so many emotional and financial vested interests that they couldn't tolerate any loose ends, even if it meant keeping child abuse quiet.

Paterno has a long record of showing above-and-beyond concern for his players and community (promoted high standards of conduct and graduation rates among his players, even spoke out against black athlete exploitation ahead of his time), so it's unlikely he just didn't care about those kid victims. That's what makes this lapse so shocking, and strengthens the argument that even such a historic and principled personality was powerless to speak up. I guess he was the victim (not meant to denigrate the true victims of this tragedy) of cognitive dissonance: he knew that even if he "did the right thing", the PSU-football-industrial-complex wouldn't have, so what's the point of fighting an impossible battle? It would have been "noble" for him to resign in protest and maybe go to the media (not the style of old school guys like him), but he knew that his players and the fan base were also counting on him. He didn't want to let his "family" down either (and PSU football is really serious about the "family" thing - it's not just cliche), so that meant letting the kids down instead. Though how can Paterno teach his players about living life right and being good men when he didn't walk the talk when he needed to? Like the Catholic sex abuse, the reputation and preeminence of the organization come first. Big money sport is very similar to big money religion and business, so unfortunately we've seen a lot of this stuff contributing to other scandals too. Powerful organizations and culture can enable their members to reach new heights, but ironically they can also force even moral, prominent individuals into bad decisions that end up hurting/destroying the org.

I don't know much about the NCAA and college sports, but the punishment is also kind of fishy and may not produce the intended results. From the Reggie Bush mess, USC was punished similarly (though much less) with wins erased and postseason ineligibility (not sure if they were fined also). They are another football powerhouse, with a coach who doesn't nearly have the likability and integrity record of Paterno, at least pre-2012. They bounced back rather well, and may now be a top ranked team coming into the new season. So it may not be the end of the world for PSU football (but who cares, it's just amateur football played by barely-literate teens?). Some wondered why the NCAA didn't give PSU the "death penalty" as they did to SMU for illegally paying players and other violations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Methodist_University_football_scandal). They were banned from intercollegiate competition for a year, but it really hurt the program for a decade since they needed to rebuild recruiting and such. Also SMU de-emphasized football and actually tried to be an institution of higher learning, so while they did recently appear in a minor bowl, they are not a top-ranked program anymore. Obviously that can't be so for PSU, where people literally enroll there for the football team (silly I know, but it's a free country). Though the NCAA's ruling has basically communicated to schools that they can practically kill someone, and their programs will not get the death penalty. But pay players a small fraction of the huge sums you are making off their talents? That is somehow worse than covering up child rape - because it perturbs the system. And we wonder why others think Americans are crazy! And it's not like SMU and USC are the only culprits. The big programs east of the Mississippi are probably just as corrupt, but the NCAA doesn't go after them out of fear, favoritism, or other COI.

I have always had a problem with collective punishment. 99.9% of the PSU community didn't know about the criminality going on (unlike SMU where it was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain). Now their lives will be forever affected. I know they can't expect to have everything go back to the way it was after a big scandal. The program would change even if Sandusky never existed; Paterno would retire someday, PSU would go through slumps, etc. But now innocent people are hurting because of the misdeeds of a few. It's like economic sanctions against Iran/Cuba, or more extreme - nuking Hiroshima. Why not just ban the perpetrators for life, but leave the rest of the program alone - apart from assigning a special auditor and requiring extra training, charity, etc.? I guess the PSU punishment is kind of like letting Lehman fail out of principle? But it's not like other schools are going to clean house now and make sure they haven't been hiding any abuses. They're just going to hide their misdeeds more carefully.

I just don't know the point of it all, it's just college sports. The universities in most other nations don't even have organized intermural sports - if athletes are serious and good, then they are cultivated at a young age by the pro clubs using private money, and don't attend school anymore. You can be a big time jock or a serious student, but not both. The highest paid people in US academics now are not Nobel winners or historical figures, but football coaches. The coaches at Cal and UCLA make over $2M a year (the highest paid public employees in CA) and have probably gotten raises while academic staff were furloughed/laid off and tuition has gone up 50% over the last few years. But football is part of the college "arms race". Schools want to look awesome in order to attract better employees and students. Everyone loves a winner. Some sports make a lot of money for powerful people. Sadly or not, it's more valuable for Cal to spend big $ to get 2 more wins per season, rather than continue to fund an ethnic studies program or expand a medical research lab. And who knows - those intellectual enterprises could be total wastes or money, or possibly lead to significant, lucrative discoveries for the school and humanity. But the +2 wins are definite financial, recruiting, and PR boons, so I guess it's easier and less risky to invest for that goal?

Stanford and Silicon Valley

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all

"...so many [Stf students] will take the exhortation to occupy Wall Street quite literally after graduation. So before making any decision, we ask one, very simple question: What will I get out of it?”- Stf senior in the Daily

Despite the title, this article is more of a guided tour of Stf rather than criticism of Stf's ties to business (apart from the obvious C.O.I. implications and threat to the "pure learning and personal growth" objective of a college education, but these are not unique to Stf). I do think that there is legit concern that Stf is becoming too monolithic and engineering-heavy, but that's where the $ and headline-grabbing innovation is happening.

--------

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201206051000

The guest did mention that for East Coast schools, people would cry foul if a president/chancellor had such overt ties to companies as Hennessey does (if only he had ties to Hennessey Cognac and LVMH group!). Not sure what he bases that on, but at Stf I guess it's no biggie. Every big shot there who isn't a Spanish prof has some connections to some company.

The guest also compared how Cal's endowment is miniscule compared to Stf's, and Stf on paper is actually more racially diverse than Cal. But that doesn't take economic class into account. I am sure that you fellow alum would agree that while Stf had many people of color and foreigners, they (we) often came from upper-middle-class to rich backgrounds. So they (we) probably have more in common culturally with wealthy whites than with rural and/or poor minorities (who may have trouble adjusting to the Stf scene?). A good % of students at Cal are the first in their families to enroll in a top school, or even college in general. UC is more of a way to move up in society, whereas Stf is for the kids of people who have already made it (stereotype I know). 

---------

When the host (Dave Iverson, also a Stanford graduate) stated that Stanford is more diverse than Cal my thought was the same (that the measure of diversity being relied upon to make the claim is not multi-dimensional); nevertheless, it's not the type of claim I would expect to hear on NPR!

I think your email brings up an interesting point... but that point might be transient.  At present Stanford might actually be more affordable for low-income families; given the ties to industry and the alumni network it might also be more likely to afford a given individual a "leg-up" in the world.  Of course, if the "Middle Class Scholarship Act" is passed the reality would be closer to the historical truth.

--------

Reflecting on the classmates I met at Stf, my family was probably in the bottom quartile of wealth there, and you know that I had a fairly comfortable childhood. But privileged upbringings don't necessarily lead to social and self awareness. College is a good time to develop that as part of the maturation process, so spending 4 years in the "Stf-Paly bubble" may actually be a handicap for the rest of the student's life. But since Stf alum usually have financial means, they often can afford to engage in supplemental self-discovery activities like traveling the world, volunteering, and/or attending grad-professional schools - while public school students may need to rush into the rat race (if they're lucky enough to land a job) to support their families and pay back loans.

If business and political forces didn't perpetrate a massive transfer of assets from public service institutions to private elites (exacerbated by the recession), then maybe schools like the UCs would have more $ to maintain a quality educational experience and financial accessibility to the average student. But instead, many public schools are privatizing to some degree in order to cope with financial realities, thereby losing some essence of what made them special and egalitarian. As you said, it's true that Stf financial aid will literally work things out with any student's family so they pay only what they can no matter their situation. It's very generous, but that's not the problem - the bigger challenge is getting accepted at Stf first (admission rates are one of the lowest in the US, much worse now than when we were students - I think it fell from 15% to 8%). And in order for that to happen, you need legacy, connections, and/or demonstrated student excellence. All those come easier with wealth. Stf has a new fin aid program for families with household incomes below $100K (Ivy League has similar). So that is basically the plan for the 99% (well 80% actually). I wonder what the median family income is at Stf. vs. Cal. It could be 2X, and it's not like Cal families are poor.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/april1/stanford-admission-rate-2013-040109.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/?mod=wsj_share_twitter

Stf enjoys more donations partly because of their business partnerships (firms give because they want access to student and professor talent) and the quality of their people generate more IP royalties and alum charity. But also Stf's prestigious and large endowment gets access to prime investment opportunities that smaller institutions and maybe even the UCs can't tap. So the rich get richer. Iverson and the guest seemed to suggest that this is partially due to Cal's liberal, populist "bias" and Stf's conservative, pro-business appeal - the giants of Wall St. and Si Valley are turned off by Cal. Both schools are good at most things, but Berkeley has a rep for excellence in physical sciences, humanities, etc., while Stf may be better known for engineering and professional education, which are more relevant to businesses today. So I don't blame the VCs for preferring to tap the Stf pool over Cal, but it's just too bad that equally good if not better students and faculty at the UCs get less access to partnerships, jobs, and other opportunities.

Those with privilege shouldn't work to amass more privilege, especially at the expense of others who are deserving - I think Leland Stanford would agree with that (the later-in-life philanthropist Mr. Stanford, not the robber-baron Mr. Stanford). Those who make it to the top should send the elevator back down for others. Buildings at Cal are literally crumbling, classes cancelled, and staff are getting furloughed, while Apple gave Stf $50M last year (investment, not charity LOL) and Phil Knight donated untold millions to his alma mater to build the nicest b-school in the world (http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/about/knightcenter/). Why give charity to the rich? It's part of the bigger national issue. So of course Stf has the luxury to look all generous and righteous, allowing students whose families make under $X to attend for free (but what % of students is that exactly?). They are only able to be so "generous" because they exploited huge advantages in the zero-sum game vs. other schools (esp. public schools who are burdened by much more bureaucracy and uncertain budgets). 

The agencies getting Chinese students into US colleges (often by cheating)

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/09/pm-chinese-students-too-qualified-to-be-true

With the one-child policy "little emperors" in China growing up into adulthood, their doting parents want to do everything they can to get their kids accepted into the best Western schools, even at the cost of $7K to top "placement" agencies. These agencies have a lot of money and reputation on the line, so they do what needs to be done to please customers. Whistleblowers claim that they wrote entire college apps for about 75% of clients. When a Wisconsin school was informed of an investigation concerning their recruiting partner in China, Shanghai Shenyuan, they immediately terminated their relationship.

I know that those with means are entitled to press their advantages in order to beat the competition, and a little tutoring or coaching is fine. But outright fraud, so they take admission spots away from honest, hard-working students who gave full effort (American, Chinese, or otherwise), is just outrageous. But these are the times we live in. And I guess some colleges aren't as rigorous as they should be to check on foreign students' credentials, because they get full tuition from a Chinese student instead of the discounted in-state rate. And yes, I know American students cheat plenty too (NY SAT scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/nyregion/sat-cheating-inquiry-on-long-island-expands-to-include-act.html), but it's not as blatant as this:

A report by consulting firm Zinch China seems to confirm [this fraud]. Zinch advises American colleges and universities on recruiting Chinese students. The firm interviewed agents and admissions consultants, as well as more than 200 Beijing students headed to U.S. schools. Zinch estimates 90 percent of these students submitted false recommendation letters; 70 percent had other people write their personal essays, and half of them submitted forged high school transcripts. Two former employees of a college placement agency told Marketplace they routinely falsified application materials. We did not use their names, because they feared they would lose their current jobs... There are numerous colleges that are having difficulty assuring the integrity of the essays, transcripts and credentials, coming from other countries, and in particular in Asia.

-Marketplace

Currently 1/5 of all foreign students in the US are from China, totaling over 130,000. You can check marketplace.org today for the 2nd part of this story - what is going down on the US side of the issue. As I am starting an MBA program, I know that it's pretty bad for b-schools too (what do you expect from the future execs and who will lie and cheat their way to the top?) :). Despite clear warnings that it is a violation of school honor code, I estimate that many applicants ghost-write or team up with their managers to draft letters of rec. Bosses are busy, and it reflects well on them to get their reports into top schools, so I guess they are OK with it. I recently heard complaints from peers that the writing abilities of some of our classmates are like middle-school level (the parties in question happen to be Chinese-born, but not making any generalizations). Clearly that level of writing on an admission essay won't cut it for top schools, so they either got help or magically forgot their English in a year. And then there's the GMAT. I had to give a thumb-print, e-sign, and show my driver's license to use the bathroom during test breaks. Is the GMAC test firm just paranoid? Apparently not: http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/dec2009/bs2009123_558900.htm (again, China is implicated here).

But the whole system is just out of control. College is a major determinant for future prosperity and happiness. Demand vastly exceeds supply for top education, and even more so for good employment. Any leg up a young person can get may help. But the ludicrous costs associated with college acceptance/tuition make wealth, not student merit/potential, the major driver of admission - and that's not how a meritocracy is supposed to work. But some cash-strapped schools are thinking about future alumni giving, so would they rather hook up a trust fund baby, or take their chances on a bright kid out of the inner city who wants to major in ethnic studies? I guess we have to get real regarding what college is about. Forget their idealistic mission statements and credos. It's not about inspiring the brightest young minds to make the big contributions that better humanity. It's about giving already privileged people the skills and connections necessary to do even better after graduation, which will augment the school's marketing, reputation, and endowment. Yes I know I'm being harsh, but this successful cheating industry would not exist if schools were serious about academic integrity, so I blame them more than the Chinese or whoever. Well, university trustees, professors, and coaches lie, steal, and cheat too, so I shouldn't be surprised if students just follow their authority figure role models. Cheaters may be in the minority overall, but like we discussed about Greek tax evasion - when the honest people see that the corrupt can do as they please with impunity, what's in it for them to remain honest?

Student loan reform

This is real reform, and was added to the passed health care expansion bill. Well done, Obama and the Dems in Congress. I have no qualms with this (can you believe it!?!), except that it is long overdue. There is absolutely ZERO reason why private banks and Sallie Mae (top lender managing >10M loans) should serve as the middleman between students/colleges and the federal government underwriting the loans, while of course increasing the cost of the loan for their own profits (another "subsidy for the banks"). The industry is huge (total US student debt is $527B) and their cut is not insignificant (~$6B/year), which is why the banks were fighting the reform so much (Sallie Mae alone spent $3M on lobbying/ads). The government will use that money to increase the size and number of Pell grants (need-based college grants) to keep up with inflation, and also support the hurting junior college system that has seen its funding pillaged by cash-strapped states. Since the Clinton administration, a number of direct student loans were available (~23% of all loans, and about 7% CHEAPER than Sallie Mae), and public schools like UC Berkeley have been using them for years. During the Bush presidency, multiple attempts to close that program were made, but fortunately failed. Direct loans have worked at places like UCB, so there's no reason why they can't work nationwide.

Pells used to cover most of a college education, but now that costs have soared almost as much as health care, the $6k/year grant doesn't go very far, but under Obama government spending on Pells has doubled (almost a million more grants will be given out by 2020). As my last email described, college is one of the best ways that poorer immigrants and the lower classes can advance themselves in US society. And if we're excluding talented, motivated people from quality higher education just because of financial hardship, then that impairs our overall economic and social well being.

This education reform demonstrates why we needed the private option in health care, possibly on the road to single-payer. This will keep student loan interest rates down. It's not putting the private lenders out of business (it will of course force them to shrink), but serving as a check against extortion. The direct government loans will offer an APR of 8% for professional schools, versus 12% in the private sector. It's not like banks will go under because they lose that extra 4% on a medical school loan, but now they have to offer competitive rates to earn our business.

Banks counter that customer service will suffer now that a "federal bureaucracy" is servicing loans directly instead of your "friendly community bank". I'm not defending government customer service (try speaking to a human at the IRS), but that's a load of crap. Sallie Mae (SLM) is a for-profit entity, and JP Morgan, Bank of America, and some private equity firms tried and failed to acquire it for $25B in 2007. If SLM is just a friendly lender trying to help our America's students, why would the sharks show so much interest? The same big bank sharks who destroyed the economy with mortgage trading are the ones servicing student loans too. When the credit crisis hit, worthy students couldn't get college loans because the greedy, paranoid banks weren't loaning. Then why are they even involved when they're not fulfilling their function? Republicans (often from states that are home to the HQ's of these banks) criticized the legislation, saying that it will cost thousands of jobs and is actually a clandestine way to help fund the health bill. Well, the first count is true, but so what? Aren't they the ones against subsidizing failing industries like auto (or are they just against union-heavy industries)? The private student loan industry is obsolete and now needs significant retooling. It's a free market and America is the land of opportunity, right? Sink or swim. No one cried when thousands of Lehman and Enron workers found themselves on the street, even though they weren't responsible for the transgressions of their execs.

And as you would expect, like in other credit industries, abuses abound on private student loans. NY sued SLM, Citi, Nelnet, The College Board (the SAT a-holes), and others for deceptive lending practices in 2007, and SLM settled for a $2M donation to a NY student loan information program. There is another class action suit pending against SLM for discrimination against black and Latino customers (charging them higher rates). In 2007 (apparently a very bad year for the industry), scandals abounded across America involving bank reps offering gifts and favors (even stock options!) to college financial aid officers to promote their banks as the "preferred lender" to students, which led to firings for those who were caught. In addition, unlike with other types of loans, the 1965 Higher Education Act allows student loan providers to also handle collection duties. So they have a financial interest to maximize defaults, which in many cases can lead to more money for them than the borrower keeping up with payments. Just your friendly neighborhood lender huh? I don't think the Feds will be that evil. 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/obama-signs-bill-on-student-loans-health-care/?8au&emc=au
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLM_Corporation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/loan_abuse
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201003310900
http://campusprogress.org/tools/788/crib-sheet-direct-loans
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9803210&ft=1&f=1001

Asian-Americans and college admissions

There was an interesting recent discussion about the representation of Asian-American students in top universities (well, the conversation mostly focused on the Ivy League). In this case, Asian-American refers to East and South Asian. Since those Asian-American families seem to emphasize high grades and standardized test scores over other student qualities, this can be a double-edged sword. For the public schools that admit students based on a formula that gives a lot of weight to the "numbers" in an applicant's record, this can be advantageous (hence the fairly high representation of Asians in the UCs). But for admissions to the elite private schools that claim to seek out "well-rounded" students and a "diverse" student body, they don't want a whole bunch of science geeks with 95th percentile scores. They also consider athletics, volunteering, leadership, hobbies, and other extra-curriculars, which Asians may not exhibit similar success (whether that be a racial stereotype or not).

I understand the argument that you don't want your school full of one-dimensional bookworms, but on the other hand, grades and test scores are the most objective aspect of an applicant's profile (assuming that high school ranking and socioeconomic-geographic factors are taken into account). When private schools put more weight on the other stuff, that opens the door for more subjectivity, which critics say is just a way to mask preferential admissions for the children of alums, big donors, and/or the rich and famous. But of course the over-arching question remains: how does one really evaluate a student's overall merit and potential to succeed at a particular school and beyond? If we went purely by demographics-blind academic numbers, it's possible that Cal's or even Harvard's class of 2015 would be 70% Asian. Is that bad for the university? Apart from the obvious benefits of a Harvard education and degree, would even the parents of an Asian student want their child to live and learn in such an environment? How do you balance diversity with academic achievements?

Bottom line, as any student adviser would tell you, it's all about making your application stand out from the pack. There are just so many talented students with good numbers competing for a finite number of Ivy spots. But if admissions boards and the general public think of Asians as a homogeneous group (which is racist and ignorant), it's harder to stand out. Every Asian-American is basically a short, skinny Chinese person from Orange County with glasses, who wants to go to medical school, plays the piano, and parents own a restaurant (or are software engineers), right? There are actually some people out there from Mongolia and Bangladesh (yes, those places actually exist!), who may be great electric guitarists or baseball pitchers, and want to study theater or geology, you know? Well in CA for example, there have been some interesting developments. After voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial preference and other affirmative actions, black/Latino enrollment at the top UCs plummeted, while whites and especially Asians rose (13% of CA is Asian, but now account for 40% of the UCs). Now that the UCs have become "too Asian", admissions offices are planning to reduce guaranteed UC admission from the top 12% of a high school's students to the top 9%, and remove the SAT II subject tests from the application. Some faculty and Asian groups are quite upset (probably the test-prep industry isn't too happy either). The state won't admit that this is in response to the Asian skew, but some predictions suggest that Asian enrollment will decrease due to the changes. This is obviously due to the fact that Asians score better on the SAT II than other races, so they are losing an advantage area. The UCs fire back the guaranteed admission only applies to UC Merced (successful Asian students rejected from Berkeley don't want to go there anyway), and that the SAT II doesn't provide much extra information over the SAT I to guide admissions decisions.  

They don't just want to admit good test takers. Regardless of alleged racism, it can't just be about grades and scores. Interning at a lab and getting your name on a patent/publication, or winning an award from your city for organizing a beach clean-up, are probably much better than taking a test-prep course to boost your score by 10%. There are only so many hours in the day. If Asian kids are devoting a huge amount of time to projects that only improve their GPAs and test scores, then they have less time for extra curriculars, if they are even interested in any. I know it's a lot harder to convince Asian immigrant parents that drama club or volunteering at the senior center will help them get into an Ivy as much as studying harder, but it's the truth. Maybe some parents don't let their kids go out and prefer they study all day. That's definitely the way it is in Asia, where college admissions are even more competitive, kids just normally study all the time, and extra curriculars barely factor in since the entrance exams are everything. So maybe that culture clash is now holding back some of the top Asian-American minds? I just hate it if kids of any race pursue extra curriculars just to improve their admission chances. I know it's a practical reality of the system, but I'd rather people do things because their heart is in it and they want to help others and do their best, not because of how it can help them later. And I'm sure many savvy Asian parents force their kids to pursue ostensibly beneficial extra curriculars that their kids actually despise. I am so glad I am not a teenager now faced with these dilemmas.

I have more gripes with Asian-Americans than your average Klansman, so I am not bringing all this up from an "Asian pride" standpoint. As precedent, the Ivies discriminated against Jews during the 1950s-60s (well, for centuries even rich white women and the smartest black guy in America weren't allowed at Harvard), and a generation later Jews are now vastly over-represented in both the student body and faculty. And of course over time, as Asian immigrant families get more established in America and grow their wealth/influence, more Asian students will be similarly admitted. Independent of that, the Asian population percentage is expected to increase from 5 to 9% by 2050, so there will be more Asians applying everywhere.

Based on a 2008 US Census update, 68% of Americans are non-Hispanic whites, 15% are Hispanics, 12% are blacks, and 5% are (any) Asian. Although most schools do not admit students based on affirmative action (but do give preference to some under-represented students), clearly the percentage of Asians in top schools exceeds their population representation. So what's the problem? Well in a typical Ivy applicant pool, maybe 1/3 of students deemed "worthy of admission" are Asian, yet the number of Asians actually given an admission letter is lower. Stanford's class of 2013 is 33% white, 23% Asian, 15% Hispanic, 10% black, 8% international (not sure if that includes Asian non-Americans), and 3% Native American. But this may reflect California's Asian-heavy population (relative to the rest of the US) and Stanford's admissions policies. In contrast, Harvard's 2009 student body was 43% white, 13% Asian, 6% black, 5% Hispanic, and 20% international. So why are more worthy Asians getting turned down? Extra curriculars? Well in many cases, Asians with top scores/grades also have above-average extra curriculars, recommendations, and essays. So why the discrepancy? Most of us would agree that the biggest discriminating factor for top university admission is not race, but family wealth. Even many of the under-represented minorities going to top schools do not fit the typical economic profile of Americans of that race.

In a recent book from a Harvard grad and Bloomberg editor, The Price of Admission, Daniel Golden explores how money buys elite college admission. We all suspect this implicitly (look at the example of George W. Bush), but he actually provides concrete evidence. A 1980s Justice Dept. investigation concluded that Asians had a harder road to Harvard admission that whites, but this was permissible because Harvard had the "right" to favor athletes and legacy students (Harvard claims to have done away with this policy in the 1990s, but the numbers show it still persists). The Ivies admit outstanding kids, we all know that. Often legacy kids or student-athletes/artists do fit in the school's typical academic profile, so just because an Asian had a 5% higher GPA, it's defensible to select a non-Asian violin protege or gifted swimmer over him/her.

But what about the legacy students who really are one or two standard deviations below the median academic profile? Harvard, for example, unofficially encourages rich parents of weaker students to join their Committee on University Resources (COUR). I'm not sure that Cmte. actually does anything, but requires a $1M donation for membership. And as you would expect, members' children enjoy a disproportionate acceptance rate, making parents' COUR membership statistically more advantageous on your Harvard app. than a perfect SAT score. The Ivy League turns away students with perfect test scores and GPA every year, but a disproportionate number of them are Asian, propagating the sentiment that Asians need to go above and beyond the other races to prove their worthiness for Ivy admission (an Asian guy with a perfect SAT sued Princeton over this, but lost). Princeton sociology prof Thomas Espenshade's study showed that in 1997, a black student with 1150 SAT, a white with 1460, and an Asian with 1600 all had equal chances of attending a private college (he did not have access to the extra curriculars and essays of those students in his study though). Why is that? My theory is that someone has to make room for the legacy students and other VIPs. Or more innocuously, when the admissions pool doesn't quite reflect the ideal freshman class profile that the school is hoping for, someone has to draw the short straw and provide the wiggle-room. Asians are the next most abundant applicant group by race, and assumed to be fairly interchangeable, so it's just more likely that they will get the boot in place of Malia Obama or a poor Latino. I don't think it's a deliberate targeting of Asians, but just probability. If under-represented minorities were getting passed over (they are already, but say at the same degree as Asians), it would cause a much bigger civil rights controversy. But with Asians, the university can claim that they already admit a double-digit % of Asians, so what's the problem?

We all know that the rich get richer. Well-to-do families who went to good colleges have the know-how to prepare their kids to replicate their successes. They also have the resources to provide the best schooling, tutoring, materials, and other opportunities to help the kid maximize his or her pre-college potential. And if all else fails, they can write a big check to the endowment. All the kid pretty much has to do is not screw up (and even cheating or drugs can be wiped from the slate, and least in the pre-Twitter days). Bill Gates would have been some mid-manager (at best) at Oracle if he grew up black in Richmond, and maybe I could be a Senator if I was a Kennedy. Talent and drive are some of it, luck and help are the rest. I just think it's too bad because the American Dream and our economy are built on the assumption of meritocracy, and many times it holds true. It's what makes us different than Nigeria or Russia where you don't get anywhere without family connections and bribes. American education is one of the truest meritocracies we have, and if we taint that with actual or suspected corruption/favoritism, then it's just like steroids in baseball. Well, some studies suggest that there is actually more social mobility in former European monarchies than the US, despite their history of classism and our supposed history of equality. But enrollment at an elite university is one of the few ways that poor or minority people can advance in America. The rich don't need that assistance; even if Bush went to TCU, his dad still would have gotten him a high position at Arbusto. So the rich, who don't need to go to Ivies to make it big, still are and thereby prevent other less privileged students of color from using that conduit to land more prestigious jobs later (and in turn help their kids follow in their footsteps, which ironically is the exact problem their co-minorities are criticizing). :(

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201003261000
http://www.unc.edu/cr/features/books/golden-the-price-of-admission.html
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/12/24103/
http://hpronline.org/blog/harvard/the-asian-ceiling/
http://www.usnews.com/mobile/articles_mobile/do-elite-private-colleges-discriminate-against-asian-students/index.html
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/09/america-class-society-ent-dream1007-cx_pm_1009class.html
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/09/income-mobility-opportunity-ent-dream1007-cx_th_1009harford.html

FYI from boston.com:
Yale’s class of 2013 is 15.5 percent Asian-American, compared with 16.1 percent at Dartmouth, 19.1 percent at Harvard, and 17.6 percent at Princeton.

More from Espenshade's study:
Espenshade found that when comparing applicants with similar grades, scores, athletic qualifications, and family history for seven elite private colleges and universities:

• Whites were three times as likely to get fat envelopes as Asians.
• Hispanics were twice as likely to win admission as whites.
• African-Americans were at least five times as likely to be accepted as whites.
• Athletes were more than twice as likely to get in as non-athletes with similar qualifications.
• Students from private high schools were twice as likely to receive acceptance letters as similar students from regular public high schools.
• Students from highly regarded public and private high schools were three times as likely to win admission as others.
• Students in the top 10 percent of their high school classes were about twice as likely to get in as students in the next 10 percent.

Tim Harford, Financial Times:

The unfortunate news is that the children of poor American families end up being poor adults far more often than the children of poor Danish or Norwegian or Canadian families. And that chips away at the cherished myth that America is a land of opportunity for all.