Well, some people are genetically stupid, and it would seem to make sense that they would tend to concentrate in the poor category.
Re Post 170:
Yes, there is no comprehensive equality of opportunity in the United States of America. There is typically such a goal which some institutions, private and public, aim for, though, at least representationally. They are not going to succeed in maximum, ultimate “inclusion,” because all of our institutions are in a sense “representative.” Not everyone fits into the halls of power, mathematically, nor the positions in courts, in school administrations, in civil government, etc., not to mention the finite number of seats in any freshman class at any “elite” college. That’s why the best that such colleges can do is to select from among those who are both qualified and who will benefit from opportunity, but many will obviously be denied that opportunity. The idea that all underserved populations easily walk into Elite colleges is sheer myth. Many of those who are well-qualified will be denied, while others in the same populations will be accepted.
The effects of birth, luck, and effort are all operative. Are you just learning this?
At public schools like Michigan you’ll see roughly the same.
I think probably the more common opinion is that the unintelligent are not as productive as the intelligent on average, and people are worth what they can produce. If someone cannot produce much they deserve to be poor. Not that poor people must necessarily be stupid.
@mom2and: “Agree UCB, but I would extend that to even great students, but not the super amazing.”
Actually, the great poor students, with decent college counseling, will know of big scholarship opportunities which they qualify for that would allow them to go to a decent college. It’s one of the big pluses of magnet schools (and maybe some charter schools).
@Pizzagirl
“It’s not a logical fallacy and it’s not semantics. You used the term Ivy. That term refers to 8 specific schools. So we all thought you actually meant those specific schools. Later on you clarified you simply meant elite schools as a whole. Words have meaning.”
Even if this is the case as you obsess over I clarified it immediately. You attachment to it and not the content speaks miles. You attended college so I am assuming you can read.
"Did you know that legacies typically have higher scores, etc than the student body as a whole? "
I also know they go through an entirely different admissions process and an entirely different adcom staff.
And where are you getting this? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/end-college-legacy-preferences.html?_r=0
“A Princeton team found the advantage to be worth the equivalent of 160 additional points on an applicant’s SAT, nearly as much as being a star athlete or African-American or Hispanic.”
“At Harvard, my alma mater, the legacy acceptance rate is 30 percent, which is not an unusual number at elite colleges. That’s roughly five times the overall rate.”
I wasn’t even saying Legacy applicants were somehow preforming more poorly, I was saying that was one way you could get by. You are sniping at snippets in my post and ignoring the context because you clearly don’t have a counter-argument.
"123, increased social mobility doesn’t mean “get into the top 20 richest people list.”
And yet these are the people whom are some of, if not the most powerful in the world. I don’t expect a majority to be from the poor.lower middle class. I expect some to be, though, sow e don’t have static social mobility.
"I don’t participate on such a thread, but what is wrong with estate planning? Should rich people be stupid and not manage their wealth? I fail to see the objection. "
There is nothing inherently wrong with estate planning but the fact that it is largely only for people with more than 5.2 mil in savings speaks miles about the types that populate here. The benefits of familial wealth put you miles above your peers. There is the reason the rich kid of the school will go to a better university 90% of the time.
@KKRSCG
“What is the alternative?”
I already told you. Improvement in education(the idea of locally funded schools is abhorrent, level the playing field), improvement in access to tutors, improved counseling, reduced college costs and better representation in elite schools. I am not asking for a 1 to 1 ratio, but the idea that 69% of a school comes from families making in excess of 120K is disgusting.
@Vladenschlutte
“I think probably the more common opinion is that the unintelligent are not as productive as the intelligent on average, and people are worth what they can produce. If someone cannot produce much they deserve to be poor. Not that poor people must necessarily be stupid.”
Except you ignore every single environmental factor. To you such factors don’t exist. You are going to have the same sorts attend schools. The people doomed to fail, the people who struggle, the average, the better than average and the intelligent. In a good private school, everyone of the people who struggle and up will do well. In a public school most of the time only the better than average and up will do well.
The Bell curve is an often criticized study, and even it admits that environmental factors from schooling, income level, and culture all play a role in IQ. It makes faulty racial assumptions, ignoring that immigrants and the children of immigrants from Europe scored as poorly when they came over as the minorities it makes assumptions about do today.
The elitism in this website is mindblowing. I doubt you people have faced hardship. Pizzagirl’s anecdote about her grandfather being an immigrant if she herself did not have suffer the pains that came with being an immigrant, or growing up in a poor neighborhood. I am third generation and my father was the first member of our family to escape poverty, yet I do not claim special status as I did nothing to deserve it.
“The elitism in this website is mindblowing. I doubt you people have faced hardship.”
You have absolutely no idea to whom you are talking. First of all, the membership of CC is broad, financially diverse, and geographically diverse. It includes people who have suffered great financial hardship and personal crises, people who qualify for lots of need-based financial aid, public school families with precious little quality guidance counseling, and families with very little disposable income for test prep.
Just because particular topics may attract more people of an upper income echelon than lower does not make CC as a whole an elitist place. And there is a wide variety of opinions about Elite colleges, admission policies, access to higher education, and more.
But you can stop your broad-brush painting any time now. I myself am hardly representative of your stereotype, but there are many others on CC I could name who are like me in that regard, but it would be a violation of their privacy to name them.
Interesting. I don’t think I’ve seen righteous indignation from a business major before.
"Did you know that legacies typically have higher scores, etc than the student body as a whole? "
I also know they go through an entirely different admissions process and an entirely different adcom staff."
No, you don’t “know” this. They go through the same process but legacy is noted as a factor.
PT most low income students do not attend high schools with decent college counseling.
A low income, high achieving URM in a good high school may have the opportunity for a good education with great financial aid. But many smart low income kids are not in that position and their guidance counselors have never heard of the major scholarships. Plus I still think those are very competitive.
“The elitism in this website is mindblowing. I doubt you people have faced hardship. Pizzagirl’s anecdote about her grandfather being an immigrant if she herself did not have suffer the pains that came with being an immigrant, or growing up in a poor neighborhood.”
I grew up in a rowhouse in a neighborhood that is, today, quite sketchy. I had a single mother in the 1960s. My stepfather who raised me went hungry as a child / teen because they didn’t have enough money, and served in Vietnam. My bio father committed suicide. I had life/threatening medical issues during the birth of my twins who themselves were on life support for many weeks. Both of my kids have had significant health issues at different times in their lives. And yet I’m now full pay with two kids at elite schools and I can participate in estate planning threads if I so desired. Your point being? You don’t know what people have been through. You’re just mad at generic “rich” people for being rich.
I’m elitist BECAUSE i worked my way up from socioeconomic underprivilege. If i can, then so can others.
Many years ago, I had a rich roommate who was in med school at Penn. One day, for no apparent reason, she began a rampage about how she deserved to be a doctor, describing how she worked so hard. I puzzled at the source of her outrage, but I kept thinking, couldn’t help but thing, “All the little boys making soccer balls in Pakistani sweat shops work hard.”
This thread reminds me so of that moment.
Don’t you think people with money will just spend even more to get an edge?
If legacies are high scoring, why do they need the legacy tag? Can someone please explain this to me?
They probably don’t. I wouldn’t mind if it was removed. My S was legacy at an elite school, and he’s graduating in an honors major with a high GPA with significant leadership positions. I have not one bit of fear that he “took” another deserving kid’s spot.
It’s interesting how 123 is simultaneously repulsed by money but defines success as being one of the richest people in the country. News flash - success is being happy, healthy, self sufficient and happy with what you do for a living. Good for the Koch brothers and the Waltons and Bill Gates, but all rich people have is more money. That’s it. They still have the same ups and downs as everybody else.
Mamalion, both of those things can be simultaneously true. A young girl stidying Penn can work hard AND little boys in sweatshops work hard. One doesn’t negate the other.
I wouldn’t either if it were my son. Now if it were someone else’s son …
According to the Economist, income does correlate to happiness
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-0
Everyone intuitively knows that happiness can be bought. But it is not the right thing to say so everyone claims otherwise.