首页> 外文期刊>Brookings Papers on Economic Activity >The Missing 'One-Offs': The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students
【24h】

The Missing 'One-Offs': The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students

机译:失踪的“一次性”:高成就,低收入学生的隐性供给

获取原文
       

摘要

We show that the vast majority of low-income high achievers do not apply to any selective college. This is despite the fact that selective institutions typically cost them less, owing to generous financial aid, than the two-year and nonselective four-year institutions to which they actually apply. Moreover, low-income high achievers have no reason to believe they will fail at selective institutions since those who do apply are admitted and graduate at high rates. We demonstrate that low-income high achievers' application behavior differs greatly from that of their high-income counterparts with similar achievement. The latter generally follow experts' advice to apply to several "peer," a few "reach," and a couple of "safety" colleges. We separate low-income high achievers into those whose application behavior is similar to that of their high-income counterparts ("achievement-typical") and those who apply to no selective institutions ("income-typical"). We show that income-typical students are not more disadvantaged than the achievement-typical students. However, in contrast to the achievement-typical students, income-typical students come from districts too small to support selective public high schools, are not in a critical mass of fellow high achievers, and are unlikely to encounter a teacher who attended a selective college. We demonstrate that widely used policies-college admissions recruiting, campus visits, college mentoring programs-are likely to be ineffective with income-typical students. We suggest that effective policies must depend less on geographic concentration of high achievers.
机译:我们表明,绝大多数低收入高成就者并不适用于任何选择性大学。尽管存在这样的事实,由于慷慨的财政援助,选择机构的费用通常比实际应用的两年制和非选择四年制的机构要低。此外,低收入的高成就者没有理由相信他们会在选择的机构中失败,因为那些申请的人被录取并以高比率毕业。我们证明,低收入高成就者的申请行为与具有类似成就的高收入同行的行为有很大不同。后者通常遵循专家的建议,以申请几所“同级”,“几所”和“几所”安全学院。我们将低收入的高成就者分为那些申请行为与高收入者类似的人(“成就典型”)和那些没有选择制度的人(“收入典型”)。我们表明,收入型学生并不比成就型学生更不利。但是,与成就型学生相比,收入型学生来自的地区太小,无法支持选择性的公立高中,没有达到同等水平的高成就生,也不太可能遇到上过选择性大学的老师。我们证明,对于收入型学生而言,广泛使用的政策(如大学招生招募,校园访问,大学指导计划)可能无效。我们建议有效的政策必须更少地依赖于成就卓越的人的地域集中。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号