Hi In addition to the points made by the authors and Mike P, it would presumably be the case that the workforce in large urban centres with many selective colleges would also be unique with respect to the composition of the workforce (parents education?), the composition of pre-university classes attended by students, and any number of other factors. Some might be controlled by income data on applicants, but not all.
Wasn't there a study that took disadvantaged students from the core and enrolled them (perhaps moved families?) in more advantaged environments with some increase of academic success of the students? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor & Chair of Psychology [email protected] Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3B 0R4 CANADA >>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 17-Mar-13 5:24 PM >>> First, I want to note that Hoxby & Avery's "Working Paper" may be available through one's college library. Check if the library carries "Working paper series (National Bureau of Economic Research)". It'll save you five bucks and the paper is worth reading. There is much more analysis reported since the authors used the self-reported data collected at the time of SAT/ACT test taking (e.g., such as parent educational level). They also suggest potential interventions. On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:32:24 -0700, Christopher Green wrote: >I was surprised that anyone was surprised by this. Although it is >always worth having solid numbers, the conclusion struck me as >completely obvious. "Belongingness" at elite institutions is only >about "talent" to a limited degree. It is at least as much about a >raft of social and class assumptions that can make such places >extremely uncomfortable for people who have come from the >"wrong" stratum. (Captured crudely, but pointedly, I thought, >in the movie "The Social Network.") Although this seems to have some face validity, Hoxby & Avery reach somewhat different conclusions: |8 Conclusions | |We demonstrate that the majority of high-achieving, low-income |students do not apply to any selective colleges despite apparently |being well-qualified for admission. These students exhibit behavior |that is typical of students of their income rather than typical of students |of their achievement. There are, however, high-achieving, low-income |students who apply in much the same way as their high-income |counterparts. These "achievement-typical" students also enroll and |persist in college like their high-income counterparts. We demonstrate |that achievement-typical students come disproportionately from the |central cities of large urban areas where they are likely to attend |selective, magnet, or other high schools with a critical mass of high |achievers. | |We note that the majority of achievement-typical students are drawn |from only fifteen urban areas, in each of which there is at least one and |often several selective colleges. We believe that this phenomenon occurs |because many colleges are "searching under the lamp-post." That is, many |colleges look for low-income students where the college is instead of |looking for low-income students where the students are. The students |"under the lamp-post" are already more likely to apply to and attend |selective colleges.(page 29) So, talented poor urban students behave more like talented upper income students when applying to colleges and this is because of an "urban effect", that is, they live in big cities that have selective high schools and accessible selective colleges which have recruiters looking for them. It is the talented poor students outside of large urban centers that avoid the selective colleges and who, for the most part, have not been sought by selective colleges. >The consequences are not only about what graduate school the student is >eventually accepted into, but about the kind of undergraduate training they >get, what they come to accept as "successful" work, the level of work that >they >come to view as adequate, etc. That is, what is described as "talent" isn't >"pure." It is conditioned by the kind of training one has received over a >period of years. It affects one's entire "world view." Perhaps, but I am not convinced of this point. >I have seen this happen from time to time when a talented student arrives >into >a somewhat weaker-than-normal cohort of students, and consequently >develops a poorer work ethic that s/he should and is satisfied with work >that is not reflective of his/her full abilities because his/her sense of >these >things is gauged against one's immediate social and intellectual context. I don't know. Nerds attract nerds and they compete against each other. And sometimes talented but poor students have an intellectual curiosity that won't be denied even if it has to be cultivated and nurtured by the individual. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=24391 or send a blank email to leave-24391-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24401 or send a blank email to leave-24401-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>
