That said, economic status and academic performance correlate closely. A college that's very selective will necessarily filter out a lot of lower-income kids purely because it's hard to do extra-curriculars if you need to work after school and/or if you can't afford them, it's hard to get good grades if you're worried about whether you get to eat this week, etc.

My point being that Brown can be both need blind and not have a lot of lower-income kids there.

This is a very hard problem to solve for a university alone. In India, there is affirmative action AKA "reservation" and trust me that system has it's own perils. I still think meritocracy is the way to go while having systems developed by the govt. to help the under privileged kids meet that bar.

Why should a college even choose the highest academic performers? It's an educational institution, not a contest.

At the end of the day, what is a college optimizing for, and why?

Colleges could be selecting for students who the college can provide the most value to, or which students need that college the most, or which students show the most potential for post-college success by the college's metrics.

It will inherently be a contest as long as admission rates are below 100% and schools' reputations are non-uniform. If you shake up admission criteria to be more holistic and less weighted on academic performance, applicants will refocus their attention and compete to satisfy the new set of criteria (at least those within their control).

I definitely wouldn't argue that colleges are optimizing for greatest societal benefit, but it would take a lot to truly align their self-interest with a selection process that doesn't heavily consider academic performance (particularly for private universities).

To address your point, though, I'll assume your use of "admissible" is synonymous with "admitted" students. An increase in rates would require that the number of admitted students increase relative to the size of the applicant pool. If the applicant pool increases with the number of admitted students there isn't necessarily an increase in the rate of admission depending on the relative increase in the size of the applicant pool. If we instead define "admissible" as meeting criteria for admission but not necessarily being admitted, I wouldn't be surprised to see a corresponding increase in admission standards to maintain existing admission rates. Interested to see if anybody has evidence to support or refute this based on historical trends in admission criteria (GPA, SAT, etc.) vs. admission rates.

I think this is what they're doing, and it's really hard to do that for a 17 or 18 year old kid beyond grades, test scores, and extra-curriculars. What would you suggest?

> A study of thirty elite colleges, found that primary legacy students are an astonishing 45% more likely to get into a highly selective college or university than a non-legacy. Secondary legacies receive a lesser pick-me-up of 13%. One study revealed that being a legacy was equivalent in admissions value to a 160 point gain on the SATs (on a 1600 point scale).

The end result of the legacy advantage can be seen on elite college campuses across the country. At Harvard, one-third of students offered admission have Crimson lineage. Fellow Ivies, The University of Pennsylvania and Brown also admit upwards of 33% of legacies, double their overall admit rate. Princeton, with its minuscule 7% admissions rate, has been known to admit over 40% of legacy candidates.

You missed the point. Poor kids in general don't go to Math & Science high schools, or high schools that offer college level courses in Calculus I-III, Number Theory, Abstract Algebra, Differential Equations, Linear Algebra, 1-2 semesters worth of programming, Data Structures, etc. These kids don't have have access to private tutors to ensure they ace their SATs, SAT Subjects, ACTs etc. They aren't enrolling in multiple ECs and they don't have teachers with PhDs writing them letters of recommendation. These kids don't have parents that went to colleges and don't have the resources handed to them as the kids that are getting into Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford etc. If you look at the lower level high schools in America, they barely give any of their kids any advantage. They actually put them at a major disadvantage compared to the elite high schools.

It's great elite colleges have these needed based programs. But by virtue of their admissions criteria they are excluding lower income students on a vast scale.

One factor here is that high achieving, low income students apparently are often unaware of the amount of financial aid available to them at elite private universities. They will often opt for a local state university, even though they would likely get a better financial aid package from the private.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-few...

"The reasons are varied, but a lack of finances is critical. Tuition can be prohibitively expensive. Elite schools often offer scholarships to low-income kids, but the schools have done a bad job of letting poor students know such assistance is available.

Professor Caroline Hoxby from Stanford University and other researchers found in a different study that many simply don't apply to elite schools because of something as seemingly minor as not having the application fee. There are fee waivers but, again, many don't know that."

On a related note, about half of UC students pay no tuition (this isn't an accounting trick where most of the costs are hidden "fees" - there are a few, but "no tuition" is what it sounds like in this case).

Another factor in the higher numbers of low income students at UCLA and Berkeley (as well as other UC's) is that UC takes a lot of community college transfers. This keeps costs low, and also may help bridge the "awareness" gap by making high talent low income students aware of the possibility of attending UCLA or UCB.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/upshot/californias-univer...

"Throughout, the University of California took deliberate steps to attract students of modest means. It kept tuition low and did far more to recruit community-college transfers than most elite state universities. The transfer pipeline is crucial, because many highly qualified low-income students— unaware of how much financial aid is available at some four-year colleges — first enroll at a local community college, where published tuition tends to be low."

need-blind is great, but it's only useful if it's paired with a commitment to make attendance affordable -- which other Ivies have done, and Brown is now trying to do.