Speaking as a one-time rural white kid, ivy league grad, and now alumni interviewer who was interviewed kids in both rich suburbs (palo alto) and poor rural northern new hampshire and vermont: neither one of the kids you described is getting in.

What matters isn’t what you do; it's what you do with the opportunities that are available to you. Your hypothetical rich kid didn’t do anything more than what was put in front of her. Your hypothetical poor kid didn’t try to find ways to challenge himself either.

The rich kids from Palo Alto who got in were the ones who weren’t loading up on AP classes, they were the ones who had gone across the road to Stanford and kept walking into bio labs until they found one that would let them do grunt work.

The poor kids in rural New England who get in go down to the library or online and teach themselves grammar, then go on to learn a couple years worth of college-level linguistics and philosophy of language (which even rich kids don’t get to take in high school) because the books were there and they were interesting.

I wouldn’t pretend for a moment that the deck isn’t stacked. But it’s not stacked in this particular manner.

I just want to say that these schools do already try to make it fairer. I was a lower income kid who did absolutely nothing of interest every summer (I couldn't even get a job: my town was dead in the summer as it was seasonal employment), never left the state let alone country, nor did I have a special recommendation letters or a perfect SAT score after my one, unprepared attempt. In a few core metrics, I was certainly less qualified on paper than many other applicants, yet I got accepted into all top tier / ivy league schools I applied to.

I completely agree with you that the odds are still grossly in favor of the wealthy kids (after all, they don't want to penalize you for being rich), but from my own experience, I do believe these schools are earnestly trying to control for these disparities by looking at what you do to excel with the resources available to you -- not simply what you do in absolute terms.

So you lucked out, you got an interview at a top college. You didn't have the best SAT scores, but something caught their attention. As a rural candidate, they offer to cover your expenses to attend. But...

Poor kid: No one can help prepare you for the top-tier interview process! If you're lucky, a couple of your high-school teachers got doctorates from smaller universities. But have no idea on interview process. You worry about the interviews for weeks.

Rich kid: You get a dedicated coach, who knows the school's interviewers names, styles, and preferred questions. You're prepared, practiced, and experienced in avoiding any rough patches. You feel confident.

Poor kid: You're overwhelmed by the top-tier experience - everyone you met on the way, in the dorms, during the tour - was richer, smarter, better dressed. Many of them treat you with an odd kind of pity. You feel like an imposter.

Rich kid: You're relaxed and at ease with your other interviewees. They are your sort of people. There are a few "farm boys", and you're curious about them, but you know they're probably not going to make it, and if they did, how could they afford to stay!? You're getting a good feeling about this place.

Poor kid: In the interview you're stuck when they ask about your outside interests... you work at weekends, and study in the evenings, along with helping out at home. Outside interests are hanging out with your friends, reading and riding your bike. You know this isn't very impressive, and this makes you feel tiny.

Rich kid: When your asked about your outside interests, you've been coached no to say too much. You have so much free time in evenings, weekends, and holidays - due to your parents hiring cleaners, etc. that you do an overwhelming amount of stuff. A chance to show off the community work that you do, inbetween being a state level competitor in <insert any sport>.

Poor kid: When you're asked where else you applied, you look at the interviewers a little blankly... you applied here and a bunch of 2nd tier colleges. Frankly you're ashamed to list off the 2nd tier colleges. The interviewer must have figured out by now - you are an imposter.

Rich kid: When you're asked where else you applied, you reel off a list of top schools, dropping references to alumni of these schools that you've met or worked with.

Poor kid: When you're asked to work through a problem with the interviewer, you don't know where to start... you've never worked 1-on-1 with a teacher/educator in your life! You were the smart kid in school who was left alone to get on with it. The closest thing you've done to this was when your parents wanted to know what you were working on... and you knew they were only asking to show interest... not because they would understand - neither of them having high-school diplomas. You do your best... but it was awkward, you barely said a thing. You're now sure you've flunked the interview, and basically, you just want to cry at how badly you've screwed up, all those people who believed in you who you've let down, why did no one prepare you for this ordeal! And there's another 2 people lined up to speak to you today??!?!?!?!?

Rich kid: When you're asked to work through a problem, this is something you've done 1000s of times with your after school tutors, your AP class teachers, and most recently the interview coach. You jump at the chance to show off your knowledge. The interview is going well so far, all the weeks of preparation are paying off.

OK. So this wasn't quite me, but leans heavily on my personal experience, coming from a household with no high-school diplomas, a below average household income, and a school which, to their credit, pushed me to apply to a top tier university. But they didn't prepare me in any way for the interview - the only interview I'd ever had to that point was the one for my 12hr+ a week supermarket job.

> If you're lucky, a couple of your high-school teachers got doctorates from smaller universities

???

You're joking right? I went to school in rural MN. Teachers have a BA degree from a state college and thats it. The only people with a doctorate at a high school would be a Principal or admin of some sort. Rarely, a teacher might have an MA in education.

Your cheesy neighbor to the east requires (required?) X number of graduate level credits per Y years to renew a state teaching license, along with "most" districts having a tuition reimbursement benefit AND dramatically increased pay per educational level in the union contract. Its possible for a 22 yr old teacher to only have a BA-Ed but its almost impossible for a teacher with more than 5 yrs experience not to have a masters or higher. Usually in a completely useless unrelated topic making it unusual and noteworthy that my high school calc teacher actually got his education doctorate by doing some relatively hard core research into quantitative comparative results of different techniques of teaching kids some small aspect of calc, which he was in fact really good at. Usually completely unrelated in that I had an english lit teacher who had a masters in history and her thesis was some really obscure corner. It turns out that demanding credentials and therefore handing them out like toilet paper doesn't magically make anyone smarter or more effective, but a lot of money is made in the process, so it'll continue and expand until it can't anymore.

I went to a CA public school (one of the most competitive ones), and my math teacher had a PhD from Stanford.

What did they teach?

And in my experience, "poor" here doesn't necessarily mean impoverished, either (although that clearly makes it worse). This applies even to average, middle-class U.S. high schools. There's very little info on what opportunities are available or how to go about obtaining them. The best students are usually off the school's radar because they have no problem passing the state tests (and why should anyone care beyond that?).

You could replace "poor" with "not rich" and get the same result. I never thought of myself as poor at all until I had some encounters similar to what the author describes.

Poor kid: school counselors dealing with problem students and not helping with college entry. Good luck knowing about the PSAT or anything other than state requirements.

I had no idea what a PSAT was until I showed up in the morning one day and they shoved it in front of me at 7AM in the morning. I'd gotten 2 hours of sleep and was a wreck because of my difficult home life and felt like I was going to throw up.

I later found out that I'd missed national merit by 2%, and that the PSAT was something that people with supportive families were not only told about ahead of time, but actively prepared for, sometimes even taken the -real- SAT as practice. I wish I'd known, or that the counselors had told me that it was something important. I do very well on standardized tests, and I'm sure that if I'd gotten at least 4-6 hours of sleep I'd have made NMS quite easily.

I don't think this is the way things work anymore. I went to a top private high school. My research into college admissions and applications centered around Google and online forums. I don't think I asked my counselors about anything.

Did you take the PSAT, and if so, how did you get it arranged?

Wow, didn't even notice this. Thanks.

They announced PSAT and SAT dates during "home room" with appropriate registration deadlines. But for other college stuff, I really did rely entirely on the interwebs.

Poor kid: what's a school counselor?!

I'm not that poor, but my school counselor did ask me if MIT was in Michigan. He was very good with parole officers, though.