Pomona College Targets the Supposedly Low-Income at Everyone's Expense

Pomona College is using data mining techniques to recruit students who live in low-income areas, according to May 24th's Chicago Tribune.

Here's the essential graff of the story which ran on Saturday.

Responding to lobbying by [Ted] O'Neill [director of admissions at U.Chicago] and others, the College Board is piloting a program this year with about 30 colleges and universities that will enable them to buy students' names and information based on whether they live in lower-income communities.

"We are swearing to use it for good, not for evil," said Bruch Poch, dean of admissions at Pomona College. "The myth of unaffordability has become a nightmare, and we can't directly speak to kids or their families unless we can really target them."

Never fear, though. The College Board is taking precautions to protect our privacy.

The schools still will not be able to request a search that would reveal which students have family incomes below or above a certain level. Instead, college admissions officers could request the names of students who live in low-income communities, determined by their high school and nine-digit ZIP code.

Naturally, this kind of policy might have side effects as all social engineering does.

Wouldn't a public high school district want to appear as if it were in a poorer area than it otherwise is? Wouldn't parents pressure their property assessors to assess them at a lower rate so that they could be "targeted" by college officials?

What does low-income even really mean? Shouldn't it be low-wealth?

After all, by the definition of low-income anyone who lived in an elderly community would be hurting and anyone who put his money into cars or boats or property years before they were assessed would be left alone. What's more anyone who lives in any area that has high taxes that when all is said and done take 40% or so of your income cannot be said to have a high-income.

Moreover, students that come from areas that are poor and rural might qualify for assistance from the colleges. Similarly, what if they are one of the few low-income people living in an area? It is not entirely uncommon, for instance, for people who own six figure homes to be making under $60,000 or so given how volatile property values can be.

Of course, relying on high school data is unfair because some students may be bussed to a different zip code (thank liberals for busing, by the way.)

I suspect that what the colleges really want to do is excuse their obvious efforts at racial engineering by throwing in a couple of students from the supposedly rough inner-city. It's been quite politically inconvenient that students from the black upper and middle class have gotten the benefits of affirmative action, while those for whom it was intended to help have not gotten any assistance whatsoever.

(In fact, as Thomas Sowell has demonstrated conclusively that because university admittance is a zero-sum game, affirmative action has benefited upper and middle class blacks at the expense of poor whites and Asians who tend to be more qualified than most of those upper-class blacks and yet are rejected.)

For them, low-income means black and Hispanic and we would be kidding ourselves if it meant anything else.

Throughout the Tribune piece, you get the sense that the colleges are bemoaning the fact that so few students are paying for college with federal grants. These students either have wealthy parents or don't currently qualify for federally-subsidized loans because Mom and Dad make too much money.

Now why would they be upset about that?

Allow me to venture an educated guess.

You see, if colleges are successful at getting the federal taxpayers to bear their costs, they can raise their tuition and push still more students onto federally subsidized loans as more and more parents demand that college be "affordable." Politicians will be happy to make college "affordable," but that will be at the expense of all the rest of society, most of which does not have a college degree. As federal subsidies rise, so too do the taxes.

If people really want to make college affordable, they could ask for an education, instead of say, a super expensive multi-million dollar student center, equipped with pool tables and restaurants.

What's that? Pomona already has one of those? Gee, look at how that's turned out!

Tina and Chuck Go to NYC

For those of you who are expecting a political post, I’m sorry to disappoint, but alas, I’m back from New York and in one piece, and so I need to write a post celebrating this major coup.

Tina and I went to New York City this weekend where she tried out for Jeopardy! This is the story of how we got there and got back.

We left our computers at home and made for the Big Apple via the Fung Wah Bus armed with nothing more than Thomas Sowell books, Subway’s sandwiches, and enough clothing for three days.

The bus arrived at South Station and we made the most of a three and half hour plus trip to New York. That cost didn’t hurt.

(Only later did I found out how ultra-unsafe it is, but you know, I'm all about the free market and pricing my own life, and so, I'd probably hop onboard and go down to D.C. or wherever by the end of this summer. After all, it will only cost me 80 dollars round trip!

It's no "magnificent wind," but it sure leaves some money in my pocket. The bus cost both of us $60.00 round trip to go from New York to Boston and if you can stomach the stench of McDonald’s, Chinese food, and 54 other passengers then it’s for you! Just be sure to get there before it fills up or you’ll have to sit next to the urinal, a pleasure I very much could have gone without on the four or so hour trip back to Boston. Even Thomas Sowell’s captivating Basic Economics cannot free you from the stench of stale urine.

We were fortunate enough to stay in an old friend’s apartment on Roosevelt Island and had a beautiful view overlooking all of Manhattan. Unfortunately, New York is rather pricey and Roosevelt Island’s location makes it pretty pricey getting off and on the island.

As is typical of New York City, it took a chunk out of my wallet, but it was fun all the same. Tina saved us a bunch of money because on Friday and Sunday because she cooked some great meals. (Unfortunately, she was too sick to cook anything on Saturday.)

On Saturday we woke up at 8:00 AM and hurried over via Roosevelt Island cable car to Manhattan. Tina knows I’m terrified of heights and so she did the sightseeing, while I cowered in the chair. (Only later did I find out that the cable car has gotten stuck above the East River! Visions of that infamous scene from Spiderman fluttered before my eyes.)

In Manhattan, we went to the Sheraton New York where Tina tried out for Jeopardy! She was far and away the youngest person there by at least ten years, but she thinks she held her own. She cautions not to expect a phone call from the Jeopardy! people, given that it can take up to 18 months before you hear back! She also tells me that it took Ken Jennings five times before he got on the show. We hope it’s easier for Tina, but alas, you never know.

In any event, the rest of the day was spent with John Wilson, CMC ’07, who took us sightseeing and even paid for dinner! John used to write for The Claremont Independent and now works for The New York Post after he won the Breindel Award.

John, Tina, and I walked on the Brooklyn Bridge and talked politics. It was quite the treat for Tina, the newly minted CMCer, and me to meet another CMCer out in the real world and see all that he was doing and achieving.