<p>He wondered, too, you know. He said he'd demurred, she told him not to be silly: she was going to throw the reject pile in the bonfire or into a dustbin. Should he have waited to fish it out of the dustbin? He did not know. He said he hated the thought of the Matisse being destroyed. But this was the early 1960s and Matisse paintings were literally being sold for a song in Paris at the time; so the client was right to think she would not get much out of selling hers. My brother literally bought a Braque for a song shortly thereafter.</p>
<p>This article reminded me a lot of a part of levitt's freakonomics.</p>
<p>beprepn, interesting comment - would the key word be "poorer"? </p>
<p>Marite:
Of course, although I would think that just as the extremely disadvantaged SES urban groups have greater obstacles to overcome in order to attain their educational goals, so would those living in very isolated rural areas - although access to "high" culture is made so much easier these days thanks to the internet and computer technology available at many schools in even those areas.</p>
<p>Social capital, in this case, is another cultural asset just of a different type and puts an interesting spin on Bordieu's cultural capital. </p>
<p>asteriskea:</p>
<p>A sociologist told me that the internet is actually accentuating the gap between the literate and the illiterate. This, of course, is a different issue from whether or not someone has cultural capital.</p>
<p>Among the illiterate or semi-literate, the computer is more likely to be used for game-playing than as a means of access to information available through the internet. He gave me the example of a young man who had decided to look for a job and could barely read or write. He'd decided to try for a job at Burger King. He was told he could look up the address by googling the name. However, he did not know how to spell it. After a few futile tries, he gave up in disgust and resumed game-playing. Thus, the internet is widening the knowledge gap between the literate and the semi-literate.</p>
<p>That does not surprise me in the least. The gap between the illiterate, semi-literate and the literate is very real and is an obviously a serious obstacle to education both in urban and rural areas - four year and elite college attendance is off the radar for most in terms of educatonal goals and, to stretch the point, values. In fact, I would argue the same for many offspring of the extremely rich - I see it all the time (books thrown aside in favor of video and computer games etc.) Just the other side of the spectrum that makes many of the teachers that I know want to tear their hair out in frustration. Many primary and secondary schools, however, do try to use computer technology in the classroom to increase literacy and even instill values related to cultural capital.</p>
<p>For those interested in Karabel's contentious/controverisal views, this article by Fred Hargadon, former dean of admission at Princeton, will be of interest.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.princeton.eu/%7Epaw/%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.eu/~paw/</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
epiphany writes: it seems that getting it directly from The Source, or close to it, would be better than stating that CC posters have made claims to the study that some of us have not made (and then criticizing US).
[/quote]
A reference to me I assume? It amuses to me the way you keep trying to distance yourself from what you've written by misrepresenting other comments. Allow me to refresh your memory. In post #8 you wrote
[quote]
neither the article's authors, nor anyone here posting so far has said that "correlation = causation."
[/quote]
Back then you seemed to believe I was talking about both article and CC posters, now you twist my comments even further and claim I was talking about CC posters. This is entirely an invention on your part. :( My first post was actually a comment directed towards the article; it is you who assumed (and apparently continues to believe) I was referring to CC posters. I wonder why ...</p>
<p>The lead 2 sentences in the article at insidehighered.com say "Do you want your daughter to get into Harvard? Get yourself to an art museum.", BTW.</p>
<p>In case you now want to say "oh, no, I didn't mean THAT article" I'll beat you to the punch because earlier you clearly understood which article I was referring to. Let me quote from your post #18
[quote]
I will agree that the line you quoted from the article, does not follow from the conclusions of the study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>mikemac,</p>
<p>(1) I "twisted" nothing; "invented" nothing.
(2) Don't flatter yourself that I am always referring to you.
(3) Other people who PM'ed me had no problem following the consistency of my logic, or my argument. In fact, other people have made similar observations to mine, as well.
(4) You're obviously interested in singling me out for some personal motivation. I find your tone, and your campaign, distasteful. You're also making no sense. Therefore, I am not engaging in further discussion with you on this thread.</p>