Text Your Way to College

Your comment is spot on and resonates profoundly with me. I'm also from a family in the bottom income bracket - my family were migrant farm laborers ever since we emigrated to the US when I was two. My outlook for college was dim and I didn't know anyone that had gone past a year or two at a local community college, certainly not in my family. It didn't help that I was raised in a tiny farming town of ~1500 people, devoid of many educational resources, with a similar background.

I also applied to and had interest from an elite school in the east coast but faced the financial burden (fees, traveling to a major city for face-to-face interview, etc) and lack of mentorship/guidance in HS to successfully pursue it. I was very fortunate however to earn a full ride scholarship to any in-state public university through a new program that was targeting students like myself, otherwise the financial aspect alone would have made it impossible. Not to mention the obstacles "navigating college" that you articulated so well.

I eventually earned my BFA and feel pretty fortunate to be in the position that I'm currently in. In the last few months, I reached out to the foundation that provided my scholarship and have started volunteering my time and story with students facing similar situations. I had always been very hesitant because I felt that there wasn't much I could offer, but the more I talk with students I'm reminded of what it was like when I was in their situation - just looking for someone that could provide a little bit of guidance and/or clarity.

I had a similar experience from a working class, 2nd income quartile household, with little contact with big cities or big universities.

SAT prep? Tutors? Private school? Scoring well on AP tests? These are unknown.

But as you say what matters most is information and role models. Many people from outside the upper middle class didn't know about other opportunities. And when they did know, they didn't even think about the opportunities because they didn't know anyone like themselves doing those things.

I was lucky to have parents that prioritized education, and a middle school teacher who took an interest in me and got me applying to some summer programs where I met kids who modeled a bunch of different possible paths.

It's important to make kids aware of opportunities. Then it's important to make sure they have role models and encouragement.

Your story really resonated with me. I think one of the biggest issue education / society has not adequately addressed is, even with a curious mind, as a teenager, you don't get too many chances to learn what is out there and what is possible. You have to know it exists to start looking. Unless you grew up in a certain household (generally higher income, educated) / environment / peer group that exposed you.

For example, I started coding in my early teens but I never really knew all the career paths it opened up until my twenties. My parents never showed me. My school never showed me. I ended up studying something unrelated in university.

I think it would be a huge boon to our collective future if schools focused more on showing students all the possibilities out there and supporting them to explore it, so they can discover their passions earlier and better maximize their potentials.

From 'shadow an employee' programs, counselling assistance, co-ed programs to extracurricular programs. Instead of letting them decide their future career paths (at least postsecondary choices) based on the limited subjects and materials they're learning in classrooms and what their parents and peers showed them (and did not show them) is possible.

>>We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did

I know exactly what you mean. Whenever I wanted to try something new, like apply to an internship, my brain tried really hard to convince me not to do it because I would get rejected. My subconscious tried really hard into making me a complete looser. To this day I sometimes have to tell it to shut up.

I come from the bottom of the bottom. I felt intimidated by everybody, especially those people that belonged to a higher income family. The good upbringing was noticeable.

I also come from a family in the low-income bracket. Despite being a top student in HS I had never heard of AP courses, SAT and I didn't know what the Ivies were outside of 'Harvard'. Unlike you I was not as fortunate, despite being gifted.

I ended up going to an 'ok' state school then couldn't attend graduate studies (despite being accepted to a top program) because I had to get an industry job to support my family. I saved up money, quit my job and now talking with a top 10 program about applying to their program. My story is still untold but I am optimistic about the future.

> We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did. It took me years to learn.

Please tell me everything about this. I teach at a community college and my students come from the middle class, the working class, and the place I can't see.

Question for HN: (sorry to piggy back off of this comment)

I've also gone down a similar path to what OP described and I feel like I really want to help those growing up in similar environments (e.g. 1st generation college students, poor family, lack of guidance growing up, etc) but I'm not sure where to start.

I live in the Seattle area and I've heard about TEALS as an initiative to mentor high school level students and prepare them for computer science in college, but I'm not sure if this would be the best place to focus my efforts (main concern being whether I'll just be mentoring kids at the more well off high schools vs the schools that really need it).

Just wanted to say that I really appreciated this story. I was lower middle income but being from a war refugee family, public school was where we went to, and then to state college. I loved it but had no idea what private school life was like. Now I work at Stanford, and am constantly impressed by the high-achieving students.

SAT tutors are huge.. wished I'd had one.

Just curious -- what did you study and what do you do now for work?

The exceptions are students who are black, Latino, low-income, or first-generation college attendees. I understand that these populations are a minority in the Ivy League, but they easily combine to be a majority of the country.

So we could more accurately say that Ivies help students earn higher salaries, except for students from certain privileged backgrounds.

There's also the argument that especially as a physician you have the obligation to your patients to do the best job you can. It's true for any profession but for physicians it's hard to see why anyone would object the reasoning. The difference between a top-25 school and anything else is like day and night, the students, the faculty, the equipment, the exposure to current research, and it's still true even though it may not be reflected in compensation.

Don't know what you're talking about. Most of my colleagues got into the industry by going to open/free events and using materials which can be found freely on the internet.

I came from a lower middle class family with a host of awful circumstances I won't go into. I learned most of what I needed to get a job through reading Wikipedia. A friend of mine and I did odd jobs for neighbourhood companies (and got screwed a lot) until he landed an entry level position at a web shop. A year later he was working at a different company and had them bring me in for an interview.

The prerequisite for getting into my industry, at least until some asshole decides to regulate it, is any home computer manufactured in the last decade (you can get a core 2 duo machine, a monitor, and a keyboard for about 20 bucks today), and a desire to work.

Today I can easily demand a six-figure salary and I've only been working full time for about two and a half years. Many people who are not as good as I am can get less after more working years. That is at least somewhat meritocratic.

The "tier" thing pisses me off. Lots of "top tier" people go to "third tier" universities for various reasons. Eg, financial, family commitments, non-traditional circumstances, etc.

I was accepted to a top tier CS uni, but did not get financial aid. I came from a blue collar family with parents born in the depression era. So we saved every penny. Every dime my parents had went into paying off their (tiny) mortgage on their (equally tiny) house. Yet, back in the 80s, that was counted as an asset in the financial aid process. So I ended up going to a 2nd/3rd tier local state university on an academic scholarship, then a top tier place for grad school (fully funded).

It all worked out in the end, and I wound up at Google. While there, they tried to get me to go on a recruiting trip to my grad school. I demurred, and said I'd prefer to go to my undergrad school. So they signed me up to do outreach to long tail universities. Rather than sending people on site, like for Stanford, MIT, etc, this turned out to be a Google hangouts chat with multiple different state universities. It was better than nothing, but it was nothing like the effort they put into recruiting from the "top tier" places. I think they may be missing a lot of good people.

I am not an expert, but

#1. You are average of 5 peers you hang out with (a good thumb rule).

#2. There is a huge valley between Software Engineering vs Computer Science (what is your goal here.)

For #1. meet-ups and getting programmer mentor is good idea.

If you really want to do pure CS, there is no alternative to college, but for Software Gig, a good programmer mentor gives better direction than College/University.

edit: this advice is primarily for second/third tier universities or comparing with them.

It used to be tech was all about skill and nothing else mattered. Netscape, Microsoft, etc had lots of people with zero university - you just had to be able to code.

But something has changed since then. Now the big companies primarily hire from "target" schools - much like how finance does it.

Skill is still heavily in demand and a non top tier school isn't a deal breaker. But your working up hill.

I don't really think it matters. I grew up in government housing as a child, lived in a very violent city all the way through high school, in an area ranked the least educated in the US. I just worked hard, made the right choices, didn't do anything too stupid (or didn't get caught ;-)), and kept at it, studied, building skills. Got an undergraduate and graduate degree from UT Dallas. Started at Amazon shortly after, went from a junior dev to a senior dev in 3 years. Nobody ever cared which school I went to. Mostly I feel like I got lucky, but hard work, ritual, and repetition matter more than which particular school ones goes to, I think.

You're not going to work for big brand companies in Silicon Valley, because they use alma mater as one of the few legal mass filters.

That's not the end of the world. Learn, enjoy, don't be an asshole, build bridges to other people, and work hard and you'll be fine.

There's a saying/proverb that I'll butcher... a lily is an incredibly beautiful flower, but it only grows in the muck at the edge of the lake. Be the lily.

Well, get the best grades you can. Master algorithms and data structures. Then apply for the jobs you want. If that fails, apply and go to grad school at a top tier University. Everything else will work out. Promise.

I'll answer the over-arching theme of your question, and then your actual concrete questions.

I'm a self-taught programmer (started freelancing/interning in high school). I then attended a second/third rate institution for undergrad and first rate institution for my phd. I have peer groups from all three of those educational experiences, so I have a unique perspective on this question.

My perspective is that a CS degree maybe isn't worth it (and/or you should get the cheapest one possible) if you're content in a job with an average salary in a regional job market that isn't NYC/SV/Seattle.

If you have higher ambitions (engineering leadership, a job at a competitive employer, much higher than average salary at stable company, research, consulting, uniquely intellectually stimulating work, etc.), things change.

With respect to all of the above career goals, attending a first-rate university is tremendously helpful. First rate universities really do provide education, resources, and peer groups that are all substantially different in kind from the education you'll receive at a second/third rate institution. You'll be treated differently in the job market. That treatment will be rendered for unfair reasons, but will probably be fair treatment -- if you apply yourself even a little, you really will be better prepared to tackle tough problems.

With respect to all of the above career goals, second/third rate universities really are exactly what you make of them. You should treat it as 3-4 years to develop a portfolio of interests, skills, and projects without having to explain why you spent your early twenties un/under-employed.

Now, with respect to your actual questions:

> that "school doesn't matter"

School matters. Sorry, it does. You'll get access to recruiters, and they'll care a lot more about getting you in for an interview. Everything is a little bit easier. You still have to pull some weight, but getting in the door is so much easier. I tried it both ways. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of it.

Someone without a top university behind their name -- or any uni degree at all -- can do anything someone with those things can do. Especially in our field. But it will be tremendously more difficult.

> and "college is what you make it".

That said, college, and all school is always what you make of it. But there's a catch. Not all hard work is equal in value, and not all valuable hard work is noticed. Top schools will try to show you how to do valuable work. They will make sure 100% that valuable hard work is noticed. However, it's still on you to do the hard work part.

A while back, the Economist said, "a dumb rich kid has a much better chance at attending an elite school than a brilliant poor kid." If a university is to maintain the goal of admitting smart students, then this would be a step toward that.

Good students from poor backgrounds have a better grasp of many social problems than people without experience of them, and are thus in a position to make a significantly greater economic contribution, to the benefit of all including the university. The university is an organ of society, not an end in itself.

Have you seen any disembodied brains running things? No, the brain only exists within the whole body and the health of the body is tightly correlated with the health of the brain. The social body is a holographic reflection of the individual body.

I think the argument goes something like: the well-off will do well no matter what, but if only knowledge is standing in the way of helping the poor achieve their full potential, it is a goal worth pursuing for the benefit of society.

A better off student coming from either wealth or parents with college experience have more resources from their families and peers in figuring out the logistics in going to college. How to get housing, financial aid, how to sign up for classes, etc.

A student who is poor or without the support and knowledge base of their family and peers must figure out all of this on their own. It was already stressful for me to figure out when I attended college, and I was in a pretty good position.

So there is a disparity which isn't based on the academic admission standards of the university, but on the students economic and social background. Providing additional support is a pretty cheap way to alleviate that disparity. The university will now get more higher quality students to attend.

Universities like Stanford have ridiculous endowments that let them finance a significant chunk of their operations on interest alone.

Universities are non-profit organizations that have a responsibility to maximize the social benefits of their work. Helping rich people does not merit public subsidy.

It's implied in the article that the opposite is true.

Certain elite schools cover tuition, room and board, and occasionally supplies for low-income students through merit-based scholarships [1] even for out-of-state students, while many state schools can only afford to grant fewer full-rides, and usually only covering the in-state price -- with out-of-state being significantly more expensive.

This doesn't mean that low-income students at elite schools still won't struggle with expenses [2] or fitting in [3]. But anecdotally, when I was a top-performing high school graduate from a well-ranked high school in the mid-2000s, this information was even harder to find, so I, and many of my peers opted for state schools instead, some with scholarships.

But much of this information asymmetry still exists today. This is what this effort is trying to rectify.

[1] https://www.collegeraptor.com/blog/affordable-colleges/these... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/for-the-poor-... [3] https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/09/what-like-po...

No. Someone from the lower middle class would have nearly all their room, board, and tuition taken care of, with maybe 10k in low interest federal loans.

It's folks in the area around ~$100k who get hosed.

I suggest reading Hillbilly Elegy (J.D. Vance) which offers a counterexample. It was cheaper for him to go to Yale law school than to Ohio State.

Harvard isn't a good example, they offer tremendous financial aid. If your household income is less than $65,000 (which could count as lower middle class), you pay nothing. By their figures 90% of households in America would pay less for Harvard than for a state school. [0]

There are many private colleges with a higher "sticker price" than Harvard but with a much lower discount rate (i.e. what the average student pays is much closer to that sticker price).

[0] https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/cost...

While it wasn't explicit in the article, it seems the focus here was much more on poor and working class communities with high performers. Students from those places able to get into top tier institutions are unlikely to be paying much if anything for their tuition.

Elite schools aren't about the education but the network. Thats the actual value.

Harvard is always worth it. There are innumerable advantaged with that paticular school. Having that name on a resume keeps it near the top of most any pile. The old boys (and girls) network radiating from that school is beyond statistics. Harvard opens doors.

The top-ranked institutions and "second-tier" schools charge about the same tuition but often have more generous financial aid so it can be cheaper to attend. Even if the sticker price would be the same for you, value of your degree is partially based on the reputation of the school so the top-ranked institution's degree is worth more.

Even if they will do as well in either and achieve the same learning outcomes, having a top-ranked school on your resume has value as a signal. And the alumni network has value as well.

I agree, but you would graduate with a better network, better branding, and possibly better skills from the top tier school, all of which have very real impact on the job market.

the 'crossover point' is different for everyone. e.g., would you rather be a 60th percentile student at a top-tier, or 90th percentile at a second-tier? (for some fuzzy, ill-defined definition of 'percentile') everyone needs to decide for themselves. as one oversimplified caricature, maybe it's still really hard to get an interview at your top-choice company even if you're 90th percentile at a second-tier school, but even the slackers who barely crawled to graduation at a top-tier school gets that same job interview.

The top ranked institution ends up costing the student significantly less money, and the name also carries some weight.