<p>The only thing clear to me is that innocent kids are getting “screwed” and that hardly anybody gives a damn.</p>
<p>Some people are afraid to admit their opinions are wrong when they are undermined by intellectual discourse. Some people dont want to learn. Thats natural.</p>
<p>TJ, don’t take this the wrong way, but the comment you made in the above post doesn’t mean anything. People who hold different opinions from yours could easily say the same thing about you. Just as you are not changing your mind about something if you are not persuaded, others are in the same position. What you do is to put a label on someone to scare them off from speaking up, which is very childish (sorry couldn’t find a better word) .</p>
<p>I’m genuinely sorry you feel that way jmilton. Everybody gives a damn, truly. However, that doesn’t mean their view or policy prescriptions are the same as yours. There are lots of great, disadvantaged kids who we need, as a country, to lift up and connect to opportunties for advancement. They (the kids) are everywhere.</p>
<p>ThacherParent,</p>
<p>Thank you for your post.</p>
<p>I am happy that you care about economically disadvantaged kids because recognizing their problems is the first step in acknowledging the need to meaningfully address their plight. </p>
<p>If you don’t support granting these poor and lower middle kids an admission hook on a race blind basis, what corrective action do you recommend for them?</p>
<p>Duh, you can start the jmilton program just like the ABC program.</p>
<p>ThomasJefferson1,</p>
<p>You completely miss the point. </p>
<p>Instead of listening to the echo chamber of your mind, read my posts. I have said it once. I have said it twice. And I now say it a third time that prep school admission policies, not private programs like ABC, are the issue. </p>
<p>Prep schools determine their admission policies, not independent programs like ABC. Hence, corrective action must begin at the prep school level because only prep schools can extend an admission hook to economically disadvantaged kids on a race blind basis. </p>
<p>All the talk about hammers, screwdrivers, and ABC evades this real issue. Creating an ABC-like program for economically disadvantaged white and Asian children will never duplicate the success of ABC unless prep schools first grant these white and Asian kids the admission preference poor children of color properly enjoy. </p>
<p>So, spare me the insults and the strawman arguments that make a mockery of your claim to be engaging in “intellectual discourse.”</p>
<p>jmilton: You seem to be saying that prep schools have some obligation to modify their admission practices. As @classicalmama correctly stated:
A BS / PS education is not a right, it’s a privilege. That these schools, unpoliced, do as well as they do in attempting to create diverse and well-rounded classes as Exie and others point out is much to their credit, but they have no obligation to do so. If this conversation is just generally about ways to help a different demographic obtain better education, the discussion is worthwhile but, if you are arguing that private prep schools are doing a bad job at something they have no obligation to do, then the hammer analogy is quite apt.</p>
<p>But even if I were to concede the point to jmilton that these schools should be more “fair,” where’s the evidence that they are not? Black students do not make up a large percentage of the student body at any of these schools; Asian student make up an incredibly large percentage, particularly considering that small percentage of Asians in the U.S. population. If I buy into the tiger mom, doesn’t that, maybe, suggest that merit matters more than skin color? </p>
<p>I see lots of accusation and indignation here without much evidence that it is justified.</p>
<p>ChoatieMom,</p>
<p>Thanks for your post.</p>
<p>A few quick responses:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The question, of course, is a normative, not a legal one. Put otherwise, the issue isn’t whether prep schools must amend their admission policies. It is whether they should do so. </p></li>
<li><p>As prep schools voluntarily decide to grant an admission hook to students of color, isn’t it worthwhile to discuss whether they should voluntarily grant one to down and out white and Asian kids as well?</p></li>
<li><p>I know that your argument is well meaning. But, I am afraid it leads to a slippery slope. For example, if we accept the premise that prep schools “can invite anyone they want to the party” couldn’t that principle perniciously be applied to abolish affirmative action?</p></li>
<li><p>Thankfully, prep schools are dedicated to diversity. Hopefully, they will do a better job of achieving economic diversity.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Unless you live in a cave, you should already know that BSs practice economic diversity and have for decades. Thats why there are kids of wall street tycoons, kids from inner cities, your suburbs, internationals they are all there. Now if you spare us some naïve arguments, you would save us and yourself some time as Einstein discovered that time is actually money.</p>
<p>Huh? Again, if we’re talking about ANY type of private institution, where does “should” come in? They’re private. They don’t receive federal money. What slope are you on that leads to abolishing affirmative action? Using your logic, perhaps the Catholic church “should” consider changing its stance on abortion because a lot of well meaning people disagree with it. I don’t intend my argument to be “well meaning”. I’m trying to figure out why you think any private institution “should” do what you feel it should do.</p>
<p>(meant my reply for jmilton)</p>
<p>classicalmama,</p>
<p>Thank you for your post.</p>
<p>Again, I am focusing on class, not race. </p>
<p>If you take a look at some of my previous posts, you will see why I believe prep schools are disproportionately comprised of wealthy students of all races. </p>
<p>To be brief, the evidence primarily lies in the fact that the majority of students at every top prep school I researched are full-pay students who come from the top 2.5% or so of the wealthiest families in America, according to an admission officer with whom I spoke. Thus, for example, the 71% of full pay students at Lawrenceville and the 65% of full pay students at Deerfield over represent this top 2.5%.</p>
<p>Merit does matter, but it does not exist in a vacuum that is divorced from wealth. Hence, wealth hires SSAT tutors who improve SSAT scores; it buys academic tutors who enhance grades; and it provides private coaches who increase the athletic performance of recruited athletes, etc. </p>
<p>ThomasJeffersonI,</p>
<p>I don’t want to be rude and ignore your post. But as I don’t have anything nice to say, I won’t say anything at all.</p>
<p>jmilton: How do you expect these private institutions to fund themselves (though tuition only accounts for a percentage of their income, it’s a significant percentage; fundraising contributes the rest)? Endowments would eventually be depleted if they adopted some altruistic but unrealistic policy of disproportionately funding the poorest students at the expense of protecting their desire to continue to exist. How does anyone benefit if they can’t sustain themselves in the long run? What formula do you suggest that would enable them to include more economically disadvantaged students, and what makes you so sure that the formulas most of the schools are using aren’t striking the very best balance they can achieve and continue to provide the product they do? You seem to find 65% to 71% FP as somehow “unfair”, but you don’t seem to be able to clearly define this unfairness, only that you think these FP statistics somehow prove it.</p>
<p>A lack of wealth buys things too: the good work ethic that gets you into a school; the care that comes from knowing you’ve been handed a precious gift, not just another thing; the security that comes from knowing your parents love you so much they’re willing to sacrifice a lot for you and that your friends like you for you, not your money; the self confidence that comes from knowing that you own your own successes and failures, fair and square.</p>
<p>On a more prosaic level, where are you going to get the money to run your admirably equalist prep school without those full pay parents–and the additional donations of the most generous of them to the funds that pay the bulk of my kid’s tuition? :)</p>
<p>He is a ■■■■■, don’t relate to anything he says and he will go away.</p>
<p>Agreed. No more posts from me on this thread.</p>
<p>I don’t see jmilton as a ■■■■■–but I agree. This dead horse has been sufficiently kicked.</p>
<p>classicalmama, your post 116 contains beautifully expressed sentiments about the invaluable things lack of wealth can buy.</p>
<p>Sarum, I ignored your mean-spirited comment the first time you made it. The fact that you repeat it reveals more about you than it does about me.</p>
<p>ChoatieMom, arguing that normative standards should not and do not evolve ignores reality. Lets amicably agree to disagree. </p>
<p>I sincerely hope this will be my last post on this thread.</p>