Socioeconomic Gaps in the College Admissions Process.
By Chloe Chang
Throughout my daily 6-hour scroll of Instagram, I often pause to watch the guy who talks about crazy college applications. Sometimes, he mentions the 3-generation legacies, teens who love their environment so much that they completed more than one thousand hours of volunteering or students who have wonderful essays that sound unachievable from a high-school standpoint. Also according to the account, so-called average applications nowadays often include valedictorian status, perfect GPA or SAT score, popular internships, or the startup of a nonprofit. Students who are higher up in the socioeconomic ladder have a significantly higher chance of getting into a good college.
The main selling factor is the story. The story is what matters for the application because it’s how everything ties together at the end for the full package. The resources that are needed to boost students to the level of “good” often require spending a couple thousands of dollars. Although there are some cases of individuals from low-income families having heart-wrenching essays or numerous achievements, those that are allowed into prestigious universities are often the upper class.
The huge gap between the socioeconomic levels creates tremendous effects on the college admissions process. First off, regarding the statistics of the students that decide to pursue college in the form of socioeconomic levels, 89% of well-off students (top 25%), 64% of middle-class students, and 51% of low-class students go to college (Brookings 2023). Similarly, the socioeconomic gaps are huge in the four-year enrollment, which is especially prominent when the top 40% is significantly more likely to go to a four-year college than students in the bottom 60% (Brookings 2023).
Secondly, even after the removal of the SAT/ACT (commonly referred to as schools going test-optional), many consider the process of writing essays also biased towards the wealthy, as “essays can be polished by a paid professional third party, or helped along by an upper-middle-class parent” (Ashok 2021). In addition, the author adds that “when quantified through a computer program, [essays] are more highly correlated with household income than SAT scores are.” This means that, regardless of going test-optional in the college application process, the “soft factors,” which refer to the extracurricular activities that one participates in, also depend heavily on socioeconomic status.
Is the concept of being a “legacy” familiar? Being a “legacy” at a prestigious school brings many advantages over others when applying. Dartmouth Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid Leo Casey states, “Legacy candidates are an important constituency in each applicant pool and in the way, we think about the class we are shaping” he adds, “Sometimes we’ve seen students get in that are good students, but they perhaps are not as strong as some of our other applicants who don’t have that legacy connection. In that admission process, that legacy extra boost really can make a difference” (2023). In simple terms, he is talking about donations that schools receive when there are legacies that attend. On the other hand, Pomona College, a private liberal arts school in California reports no change since the removal of legacy preferences. This means that colleges still prefer legacy applications over regular applications because of the funding that they know they can receive. Despite Ponoma College’s report, many colleges still follow in the same footsteps as Dartmouth as to their beliefs on “legacy” students.
The advantage that the higher socioeconomic class has is tremendous, as a startling fact from the New York Times states that “Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60” (Aisch 2017). In prestigious schools such as Tufts, Colgate, and Middlebury, interesting statistics have been measured, such as the reported 2:1 ratio of students in the top 1% economically and the bottom 60% attending those prestigious schools. In addition, “About four in 10 students from the top 0.1 percent attend an Ivy League or elite university, roughly equivalent to the share of students from poor families who attend any two- or four-year college” (Aisch 2017). These figures all support the notion that those who are more well-off gain a significant advantage in the college admissions process.
How does this affect the average student, though? One reason to care is that lower and middle-income students are less likely to apply via early decision. Students’ financially well-rounded parents were 3.5% more likely to apply for early decisions than others (LA TIMES 2024). Only 25% of students can be at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. This means that this issue affects the other 75% of the student population in most schools. These statistics provide insight for most into the idea that the decision of your college application relies heavily on your socioeconomic status. For some, the next logical step would be to consider something similar to affirmative action.
The question is if there is a solution to this persistent problem. Some support the notion of bringing back the SAT but providing free resources across all high schools, while others prefer financial aid or other plans. However, one author gives an interesting take on this issue: “Admissions officials can say they consider every individual’s unique traits, but it appears these traits are mostly inseparable from socioeconomic indicators in applications” (Ashok 2021). The individual “soft traits” that admissions officers claim are not considered regarding your socioeconomic status is simply impossible. There is no universal way for those in the lowest socioeconomic level to have access to the same materials that those at the highest level do, which creates difficulties for low-income students to be on equal footing as those at the top of the ladder. Evidence has shown that there are many differences between the socioeconomic levels that impacts the individuals’ college applications, which affects the youth of America.
Comments