Competing academically against kids who have private tutors

Parents Forum
421

<br>

<br>

<p>When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him
or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical
or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to
this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an
amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or
community standards.[2][3]</p>

<p>This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more
heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive
claim, or makes a claim more “extraordinary”,[4] that is farther
removed from conventionally accepted facts.</p>

<p>[Philosophic</a> burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof]Philosophic”>Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia)</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: “appeal to the people”) is
a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because
many or all people believe it; it alleges: “If many believe so, it is
so.”</p>

<p>This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal
to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the
people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon
fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum (“appeal to
the people”), argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), and
consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of
a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the
bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of
the Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger”.</p>

<p>[Argumentum</a> ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum]Argumentum”>Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia)</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation
of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the
illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a
superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”),
and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original
position.[1][2]</p>

<p>[Straw</a> man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument]Straw”>Straw man - Wikipedia)</p>

422

<p>“I am indeed talking about high-income pockets who do more than a “fair amount” of tutoring. IOW, the “Corporate Johnny” types. I promise you they will not be offered significant aid at Columbia”</p>

<p>Those folks end up with debt?</p>

<p>They have incomes well north of 200k, and haven’t already saved up enough to pay out of pocket?</p>

423

<p>Post 421:
No. You implied, based on anecdotal experience alone, that your son’s experience is universal. It’s up to you to provide additional examples, since you were the one offering this as some kind of universal option the first time you posted it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this is possible for any student who wants it. Again, I’m ignoring your O/T demands unless there’s a significant rally-cry from other contributors to this thread. It’s not respectful to the OP to hijack, unless significant numbers of debaters want to engage in a “challenge” regarding what is obvious to those well informed about the varieties of academic policies at U.S. institutions of higher learning.</p>

424

<p>“This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more
heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive
claim, or makes a claim more “extraordinary”,[4] that is farther
removed from conventionally accepted facts.”</p>

<p>the question though is what are conventionally accepted facts. And thats confused by the question of what you are arguing</p>

<p>A. something about grad level courses that I cant be bothered going back and reading
or
B. that academic policies in general vary considerably from university to university</p>

<p>B, I think is very definitely conventionally accepted (and here ad populum would not be a fallacy) and arguing against it would have the burden of proof</p>

<p>A, I dont know, cause like I said, I havent followed it. Mea culpa.</p>

425

<br>

<br>

<p>Then quote what I said; don’t put words in my mouth. Otherwise
what you just wrote is a strawman.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>I’ve studied logic, debate, and expert systems. I am quite familiar
with universal and existential quantifiers. I rarely make statements
with universal quantifiers as I know what is involved in mathematically
proving them.</p>

<p>You made a statement. You bear the burden of proof for that statement.
I only requested one example. You probably could have found that example
in the time that you’ve taken to respond to my posts. But many people
like to waste time arguing over silly things.</p>

426

<p>422:
Good point. :slight_smile: In some cases, they do not, of course. In other cases, they could if they do not quite meet the bar for generous aid – the bar that you and I are well aware of. They could be wealthy enough to afford pricey tutoring, pricey neighborhoods with heavy real estate taxes, etc. (and corresponding fine public schools which do not require tuition), or they could be spending all their money (they often do) on private schools combined with pricey e.c.'s combined with pricey tutoring.</p>

<p>But do remember a little “wrinkle” in college admissions, BBD, that has been true for 7-ish years now: The “top” Elites, esp. HYP, are looking to economic circumstances as a significant “tip” for admission. A student who is clearly so privileged is not necessarily at an advantage for those particular schools, unless the family is a Development Admit, and that has not been true of the families I’m familiar with in these wealthy or wealthy-ish pockets.</p>

<p>Thanks for the correction. :)</p>

427

<br>

<br>

<p>I’m not asking a question. I merely asked for an example of the poster’s assertion. Something that I felt would be trivial to provide. I merely wanted to take a look at a policy that restricts freshman and sophomore students from taking upper-level classes and graduate classes.</p>

428

<p>

</p>

<p>You’re the one who originated the statement, implying it was a universal opportunity. It is common knowledge that it is not a universal opportunity. This is the last time I’m responding to this O/T subject unless several posters also challenge the common understandings about the varieties of academic policies at higher institutions. It’s a time-waster.</p>

429

<p>

</p>

<p>Then stop being so lazy and start looking at large public university systems in a variety of high-density states/regions, and show us how it’s simply a trivial matter for any old freshman at any old public U in this country to take upper-level courses regardless of the major, regardless of the overburdened class sizes, regardless of budget restrictions.</p>

<p>You live in a bubble.</p>

<p>Finit.</p>

430

<p>U can’t get upper level at UC Berkeley as a freshman…Cal and UCLA are now 5 year schools because of that reality…150k (30k a year) for a “public” education, kids in California choose privates over ucla and cal now, because it’s cheaper if they get a bit of merit aid.</p>

<p>access to upper level classes as freshman in the best public universities (Cal, UCLA) in the world is unheard-of</p>

431

<p>I wonder if the current Johnny Inc arms race is an unintended consequence of the top colleges with huge endowments beginning to offer free tuition to families with incomes under $60,000 (and reduced tuition to those up to $180,000). Suddenly this opened the floodgates which had held the hoi poi back for generations – the cost. What are the consequence of this action? That 3-4 times as many excellent candidates are applying now vs. a decade ago?</p>

<p>So suddenly the second-tier students at the elite feeder high schools were having trouble getting in. Acceptance rates plummeted. Legacy acceptance rates also plummeted. Parents panicked: Gentlemen’s B’s in high school were no longer acceptable, your neighbor’s kids became an obstacle to your own kids’ successful acceptance. How to regain an edge?</p>

<p>While the odds are not good that a student from a lessor school will get into HYPSM, there are enough of such schools that if only a 3rd of them send one kid a year to any of these colleges, it has to come from someone else’s previously-assured slot. Thus, the odds still favor the very best students at the best high schools – so now the most ambitious parents have become Machiavelli-wanabees, willing to do whatever it takes to help their “princes” assume their “rightful” positions.</p>

432

<p>interesting idea, lorem, I like your speculation.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I am skeptical.</p>

<p>A. While the Ivies with the generous plans undoubtedly DID want to gain a competitive edge on acceptance rates, etc by discounting to the smart middle class kids, I dont know that its a big enough effect to really make that huge a difference - if it was it would be an expensive policy - my vague impression is that the policies are doable precisely because the schools think the number of those kids who get in and will take advantage of the policies isnt that big. </p>

<p>B. IIUC, acceptance rates have been declining, and selectivity increasing, at elite schools that do not have those policies. Thats also just an impression.</p>

433

<p>

</p>

<p>Based purely anecdotal evidence from my own experience, I wouldn’t say that these institutions are “full of creative out of the box individuals.” At my own school (penn) and having visited h.s. friends at other schools (harvard, yale, princeton, stanford, etc.).</p>

<p>I noticed that a very high percentage of the population of students at these schools were wealthy, well-connected, Johnny Inc. On the one hand I found this to be fantastic from a networking perspective and it has proven to be helpful in my career thus far (being surrounded by the children of successful fortune 500 CEO, ibank MDs, etc.) plus it did have its perks (i.e. visiting vacation homes, flying private, etc.). That said when i first started at school i was pretty shocked to realize how unprepared/stupid (for lack of a better word) a large percent of the population was. I thought that I would have to work really hard to compete and do well and then i realized that most of the students weren’t well prepared at all…all the pre-gaming, tutoring, etc. got them in the door. </p>

<p>to caveat my statement above, I would say that this is disproportionately true at Penn compared to other schools that I visited or had friends at (likely because Penn, self-admittedly, very heavily favors legacies compared to most other schools).</p>

434

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course they know there are more ways to success and well being than just the HYPSM path.</p>

<p>Some “successful” and competitive parents are very goal-oriented and they are not used to settling for second best. Once they set a goal and started the pursuit, it becomes very hard for them to give up or change their goal. Not achieving it or settling for second best amounts to a personal defeat. The same attitude may have directly contributed to their “success”, but when applied to their kids’ education, it can have detrimental and paralyzing effect. </p>

<p>To me, there is nothing wrong in trying your best to get to the best school you can that match your ability and interest. The problem here is that some parents define what the best schools are for Johnny without even trying to understand (or refusing to acknowledge) where Johnny’s natural ability and interest can take him, and proceed to incorporate Johnny to ensure Johnny Inc. gets accepted to the schools they defined for him. Even if half way through the process, they realize it may not be all that wise to sacrifice Johnny’s childhood, they tell themselves that it’ll all work out in the end once Johnny gets that Harvard degree, and thus continue on with the rat race. </p>

<p>The irony of it is that in some cases, Johnny Inc. will turn out fine and go on to become successful and contributing member of the society, but the results of many others will lead to deep regrets. The question to the parents of Johnny Inc. out there: are you certain your Johnny is the former? </p>

<p>Of course, which parent would say no about her Johnny Inc.?</p>

435

<p>Brooklynborndad, let’s consider that in economics, change is determined by the marginal buyer. Let’s say that only the top 15% of the population could afford HYPSM without the heavy financial subsidies. The top 5% have the resources and the connections to almost always get Johnny Worldcorp in, they’ve been doing this for generations. So maybe 25% of the HYPSM openings go to them and another 25% go to athletes, URMs and special cases.</p>

<p>Suddenly those in the 85-95% of the income bracket are no longer “entitled” to the other 50%. Maybe the lower 7/8ths of the population doesn’t have the necessary preparation to take more than 15-17% of the spots. Still, those spots ultimately chop a third out of the spots than ambitious upper-middle-class families used to have in reserve for their kids. And THAT starts a game of musical chairs where you try to make sure your neighbor’s kid is the one without a chair when the music stops.</p>

<p>Now those kids without a chair still have to go elsewhere and THEIR parents are not affected by lack of financial resources. Thus, one would expect an overflow to other high-tier colleges with less generous financial aid. This, in turn, might bump others accustomed to using these second-tier schools as safeties. And thus the arms race accelerates as each year’s acceptance stats and personal anecdotes circulate among the parents of current high school and middle school students.</p>

436

<p>Had to comment on a comment a few pages/hours back about gifted kids and tutoring. There is a difference in tutoring and teaching. GT kids don’t need one on one going over of the same material, they need individualized offering of new material appropriate to their advanced needs. </p>

<p>This reminds me of the difficulty in assessing kindergarteners true abilities. Some are intensely educated in preschool settings and/or at home and enter with skills beyond their expected knowledge base. But these students do not continue to forge ahead as fast as those with more innate abilities. Fast forward to college. Tutored Johnny may well be over his head when the fast pace expected quickly goes beyond his true abilities. Elite colleges must spend a lot of time in admissions sorting out who can handle the work- or maybe they actually have a more average student body than we are imagining. Decades ago the Ivys definitely had more average intellect students- they were the elite in other ways (think of somer of their more famous alumni, especially in politics).</p>

<p>What happens when these kids are expected to think independently? Is the “prize” worth the effort? If so impressive why do the majority of elite college grads only get the bachelor’s degree? Stellar students from other schools are getting the grad school and professional school slots also.</p>

<p>Perhaps my opinions are colored by being in the Midwest with good public education at the local through college level. I once checked textbook authors at several east coast elite college bookstores- those schools were using books authored by professors from many public U’s.</p>

<p>Now if we could only get a more diversely educated Supreme Court…</p>

437

<br>

<br>

<p>If you think that I did this, then post what I wrote. You are only
making an assertion here which I dispute.</p>

<p>At any rate, I reiterate that you bear the burden of proof for your
statement.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>You bear the burden of proof.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Non sequitur.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Thank-you for the example.</p>

<p>Could a freshman take a graduate class?</p>

438

<p>I’ve been thinking about mtmmomma’s comment a few pages back about “Johnny Snow” in her area, the kid who lives the intensely supported sports path through HS. There are many kids like that in our area, especially in baseball, volleyball and water polo.
That support seems accepted as normal for sports across the country, but the practice of similar intensity for academics is questioned by many on this thread who do not live in areas where this is common.
On a side note, the Boston Globe has an interesting article today on math tutoring for acceleration at the Russian School of Mathematics and Kumon.</p>

439

<p>

</p>

<p>You can get upper division classes at UCLA (no experience with Cal) as long as you’ve met the prerequisites for the course. Most people that would have those prerequisites (from AP and CC classes) however,usually have enough units to technically start as a sophomore.</p>

<p>Uhm…,S is a senior at UCLA and he will graduate in 4 years (as will all of his roommates), even with changing his major. His education/living expenses will have cost us close to 100K (quite a bit short of the 150K) even though his “older” Westwood apartment costs $4500 per month (3 bedrooms/2 kids per room solves that problem). Still cheaper than Stanford!</p>

440

<p>"Many students who have lived that system in high school here report that college is easier for them than high school.
They think they have to live a certain way in HS, with the most demanding classes across the board, intense sports involvement and a long list of ECs. Then they get to college and take classes that interest them, ECs just for fun and many drop their year-round sport. "</p>

<p>Sounded like my urban public magnet high school except replace lots of ECs with a handful of ECs and/or part-time jobs of 20+ hours a week for the majority of students who are from working/lower-middle class and/or first-generation immigrant families when I attended. We also weren’t bit on sports as we tend to ignore or even unfairly stigmatize our jocks as “less intelligent”* and the most popular/coolest kids were on our high school’s math and debating teams.</p>

<p>Nearly everyone who graduated from my high school expressed astonishment at how much easier college was than high school. Only exceptions were students who ended up at Caltech, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, UChicago, Cornell…and even the…it was just a little more challenging. Heck, I recalled one high school classmate expressed his disappointment that MIT was nowhere near as difficult as he was led to believe. </p>

<p>Heck, most of the ones at Harvard expressed the idea of how the hardest thing about their college was “getting in”. Consequently, they were shocked at seeing numerous well-off classmates from private schools and suburban publics with Johnny, Inc. style tutoring struggling to grind out mediocre…or even flunking grades in courses they found to be quite manageable or even a joke. </p>

<p>Had the same experience at a well-respected SLAC despite having been a mediocre student in high school with SATs on the low-end of the 25-75 percentiles. Was shocked at how I was doing well and making a financial killing tutoring well-off kids with far more impressive high school stats/SATs who were struggling or even failing courses I had no issues with. </p>

<p>And some had the nerve to assume they were “intellectually superior” at first for having attended private school instead of public…and in an urban area to boot. </p>

<ul>
<li>Utter nonsense as our high school’s jocks took the same entrance exam and subjected to the same standards as the rest of us.</li>
</ul>

<p>"Not always, BCEagle. Many U’s, particularly publics, have rigid prereqs and/or limit upper-division to class level. Even more true for grad level. "</p>

<p>That was the very reason several high school classmates who started at CUNY/SUNY schools ended up “transferring up” to and graduating from Ivy/Ivy-type colleges after one or two years. Here’s some examples:</p>

<p>2 classmates who transferred from Queens College to Reed and Brown because they were forced by departmental regulations to take freshmen courses that covered the same ground as their high school classes and felt they were wasting their time. </p>

<p>Several classmates who transferred from SUNY Binghamton and Buffalo to various Ivies and schools like Carnegie-Mellon because of the same issues after 1 or two years.</p>