<p>“Yeah but she would prefer to be among really smart, needy poor kids.”</p>
<p>But that’s not diversity.</p>
<p>True, but the colleges she is looking at will also have some stupid rich kids, so there will be at least a little intellectual diversity.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=vicariousparent]
mini’s statements are broad generalizations and intentionally provocative and offensive
[/quote]
So, she’s trying to make people angry by making illogical statements? What’s the point of that? Kinda makes the discussion less than productive. I’ll assume otherwise for now, because I hope there’s a point worth clarifying here.
[QUOTE=vicariousparent]
a diverse campus is absolutely required in order to have a good educational experience.
[/quote]
Why? How does a “diverse campus” enhance the educational experience? I’m looking for specific terms, since I’m told that a specific amount is being charged for the “enhancement.” So many people talk about the value of “diversity” as if it’s inherently obvious, without ever even defining “diversity.” But if it’s so obvious, it should be easy to describe. What is the added value?
[QUOTE=vicariousparent]
So full pay students are “buying” the opportunity to live and study alongside “needy” students.
[/quote]
My son has had that opportunity in high school for the past four years, without charge. I think he has learned a lot from it, especially about personal responsibility, hard work, and the impact of personal choices on generations to come. He has learned to be grateful for what he has, to strive for what he wants, and not to waste his effort blaming others for things he can change. Great personal lessons, all free of charge… but I’m not sure this is what mini’s getting at.</p>
<p>“True, but the colleges she is looking at will also have some stupid rich kids, so there will be at least a little intellectual diversity.”</p>
<p>So your daughter want intelligent poor kids and a few stupid rich kids but no stupid poor kids. Doesn’t that seem a little bigoted to you?</p>
<p>
Hmmm… you lose me on that statement. Our experience is that colleges and universities bend over backwards to admit disadvantaged students who just as often as not have lesser qualifications than their full-pay peers. There are even special programs designed specifically to deliver extra help and support to lesser-qualified disadvantaged need-based aid students because colleges and universities already know they’re going to need extra academic help to succeed in a demanding educational environment. </p>
<p>UW-Madison’s program:
[AAP:</a> Academic Advancement Program](<a href=“http://www.lssaa.wisc.edu/aap/]AAP:”>http://www.lssaa.wisc.edu/aap/)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=vicariousparent]
True, but the colleges she is looking at will also have some stupid rich kids, so there will be at least a little intellectual diversity.
[/quote]
OK, so this would seem to be more of that “intentionally provocative and offensive” stuff. And certainly it is P&O. More to the point, though, it’s inconsistent with a position I associate with the same folks who say this sort of thing here. If full-pay (or to use your word, “rich”) kids are so much less intelligent than those who qualify for need-based financial aid… then what is the purpose of the “URM hook” in admissions, if one assumes that the URM students are bringing the same type of “diversity” to campus? If full-pay students are actually less qualified, then shouldn’t so-called “diversity admits” be able to compete with them on level ground? On the other hand, if full-pay students are the same students who have every competitive advantage because they’ve had the benefit of test prep, more rigorous classes, and more extracurricular activities to split up their time… have they not become more capable than their peers by means of these pursuits?</p>
<p>How can you have it both ways? How can you say both of these things?
- “Economically disadvantaged” students should get an admissions edge that offsets the higher grades, test scores, and involvement of “economically advantaged” students, for the sake of fairness.
- “Economically disadvantaged” students are better qualified than their “economically advantaged” peers, to the extent that the latter should pay for the express privilege of spending time in the company of the former.</p>
<p>There must be some other definition of “qualified” at work here, too. If “qualified” means “adds diversity,” then we’re back to square one: What, exactly, is this “diversity?” What is the intrinsic value added by the presence of people who couldn’t afford to be there without the support of other people who can?</p>
<p>“How will rubbing elbows with a student who receives need-based financial aid improve the quality of my son’s education,…”</p>
<p>Shouldn’t this be a question you should be asking of the college or university your son attends, rather than me? I mean, I don’t run their admissions office.</p>
<p>geek_mom, you ask some tough questions!</p>
<p>LOL…this is fun. Now I know why mini likes to make provocative statements.</p>
<p>geek_mom, I don’t know if you hang out on the politics subforum, mini specializes in making outrageous provocative statements (eg Mc’POW for McCain, genocidal killer for Clinton). Don’t let him (or me, on this thread 
raise your blood pressure too much.</p>
<p>As for the value of diversity, it is just something my D is seeking. She likes that kind of environment, just like some kids like to be in warm climates and some want to have certain types of food available on campus. She also thinks, and I agree, that people from different backgrounds (including impoverished backgrounds) will bring different perspectives to discussions and enhance the in-class and outside-class education that she will get in college. </p>
<p>BCEagle- Yes, she will not be exposed to stupid poor people, and that is a limitation she will have to live with.</p>
<p>Edit: geek_mom: I was going to clarify: I was thinking of developmental admits when I said stupid rich kids. My D, (presumably like your kid) would be one of the smart rich (as in full-pay) kids.</p>
<p>“Yes, she will not be exposed to stupid poor people, and that is a limitation she will have to live with.”</p>
<p>Does she get a discount for the school not providing that diversity?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91]
So your [vicariousparent’s] daughter want intelligent poor kids and a few stupid rich kids but no stupid poor kids. Doesn’t that seem a little bigoted to you?
[/quote]
More to the point… What does this say about the daughter? vicariousparent said she’s “tired of being around other affluent, privileged kids” and looking forward to being part of a student body that consists of “really smart, needy poor kids” and “stupid rich kids.” Soooo… if she’s one of the “affluent, privileged,” which of those categories is hers?
R.A.A.
Again.
I’m sure this isn’t what vicariousparent meant to imply… nor would I ever make such an obnoxious statement about anyone’s kid here, let alone my own. So vp’s argument must be purely a joke, not intended to have any relationship with truth.</p>
<p>How about you, mini? Truth or joke? If the latter, then I guess we can discuss whether or not it was funny. But I still want to know about that diversity thing.</p>
<p>Edit: Cross-posted with vp, who already posted to clarify. Yup… vp’s kid and mine are the smart, rich ones. 
And no, vp, I avoid the Politics forum like the plague! I get enough politics out here on the other boards anyway. ;)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=BCEagle91, first quoting vicariousparent]
“Yes, she will not be exposed to stupid poor people, and that is a limitation she will have to live with.”</p>
<p>Does she get a discount for the school not providing that diversity?
[/quote]
If I were her, I would beat the door down demanding my discount. I would bet that a stupid poor kid provides at least as much diversity as two smart poor kids. So, assuming that the stupid rich kids are providing diversity of $0 value, by my calculation she should still be entitled to 1/3 of her “diversity surcharge.”</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=mini, first quoting me]
“How will rubbing elbows with a student who receives need-based financial aid improve the quality of my son’s education,…”</p>
<p>Shouldn’t this be a question you should be asking of the college or university your son attends, rather than me? I mean, I don’t run their admissions office.
[/quote]
They didn’t say it. You did.</p>
<p>Yeah, compared to the financial circumstances in which I grew up, my D is definitely a very privileged rich kid. I try not to hold it against her- she can’t help it. </p>
<p>Anyway, I’m done having fun on this thread. Look, I was just trying to rationalize having to pay big bucks soon for college.</p>
<p>geek_mom, I almost replied to “mini”, but you said it so well I decided to keep quiet. Pretty sure that “mini” isn’t a real person, just a forum-■■■■■ trying to stir the pot. I enjoyed your replies either way!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=vicariousparent]
my D is definitely a very privileged rich kid.
[/quote]
My son isn’t. Maybe he would be if I hadn’t taken that whole “saving for college” thing so seriously when he was growing up. :o
[QUOTE=vicariousparent]
I was just trying to rationalize having to pay big bucks soon for college.
[/quote]
Me too, in a way. :)</p>
<p>AllThisisNewToMe: In all seriousness, mini is a real person and a very interesting and inspiring man. He has posted a lot of detail about his humanitarian efforts on the Cafe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’d just like to say that these programs are definitely targeted toward low-income, financially-needy students because those students are MORE LIKELY (but not necessarily) to have come from poor schools. They might even lack parental support. It’s not that these students aren’t as smart as other students, they just don’t have the same amount of preparation. The same might be said of a student who goes to a school with no honors/AP courses versus a student who took ten honors and ten AP courses in a great, competitive public school. They both might be very smart, but one is more prepared. The “disadvantaged student” may have gone above and beyond his/her situation or they may not have, but that student - as I see it - has the right to pursue academic help if they have not been properly/as well prepared as other students.</p>
<p>[The “disadvantaged student” may have gone above and beyond his/her situation or they may not have, but that student - as I see it - has the right to pursue academic help if they have not been properly/as well prepared as other students.]</p>
<p>Where do you draw the line? What do you do with a disadvantaged minority student that reads and writes at an elementary school level and is accepted to a four-year university (not a hypothetical case as I know such a student)? One of the huge problems is in the prepared student living the habits of success over a dozen years that the disadvantaged student didn’t experience. Can you make that up in a very short time?</p>
<p>The college system is becoming dysfunctional because the K12 system is dysfunctional - it seems to me that it would be a better idea to fix K12. California spends 39% of its state budget on K12 education - I would think that it should have the best education system in the world at that level of spending. That’s not what I’ve been hearing from relatives living there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with everything you said, applicannot, but how does that tie in with mini’s reference to need-based aid students as, “better qualified, more capable students with the added benefit of bringing greater diversity to the campus.”?</p>
<p>Your comment would seem to contradict mini’s assertion, as does our experience. That’s why I said mini lost me on that point. There’s far more money available for need-based aid than there is for merit-based aid. Assuming full-pay students are somehow less qualified and/or less capable than other students at a school simply because they had not received merit aid (scholarship) and therefore subsidize other students’ cost of attendance would be intellectually dishonest, IMHO.</p>