The article mostly takes as a given that attending the 'elite' school would be better for these students. There's one quote late in the article, from the article's main source Stanford econ professor Hoxby, suggesting there's a big lifetime earnings-boost after graduating from top schools.<p>But, the actual story is a bit more complicated. Some research suggests that admitted students <i>capable</i> of attending top schools, who then choose to go to 'lesser' schools, do just about as well. Here's coverage of one such study:<p><a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-value-of-elite-colleges/" rel="nofollow">http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/revisiting-the-...</a><p>Also note that the studies supporting big lifetime earnings boosts for either 'college' or 'elite colleges' tend to be based on <i>graduating</i>, not just <i>enrolling</i>. Graduation is not automatic, especially among low-income/first-generation admits. A student who chooses a nearer, cheaper, less-prestigous school may be increasing their chances of graduating enough to offset the premiums-conditional-on-graduation elsewhere.<p>There are some very-credentialist fields where school-prestige is of paramount importance – especially college education itself (graduate degrees/professorships) and some high-dollar finance/consulting/law careers. But there are many other careers, just as attractive to students and society, where college-prestige is far less important. For these, if a student plans to settle back near their hometown, the education and contacts from a locally-respected institution may be as good or better than a far-away prestigious degree.<p>So one answer to "why many smart low-income students don't apply to elite schools" may be that these students are really quite smart, and do actually know better what's right for them.