<p>Yes, it is depressing. Even worse, the advantages of growing up upper middle class or wealthy persist throughout life, even after controlling for education received. </p>
<p>What to do about it? Well, two questions 1. what can COLLEGES do, given the educational disadvantages of being poor, and 2. what can SOCIETY do?</p>
<p>Colleges can do pretty much what places like Brown do now- use the set of academic predictors like GPA, SAT I, SAT II, and AP scores as one element of the admissions decision. This tells the institution whether the student can benefit from the education offered at an elite college. These factors, along with other academic indicators like published writing, science contest results and similar accomplishments also help identify those who are at the top of academic potential, and more likely to make their mark on the world in narrowly intellectual pursuits (college professors, for example). Take some of these people, but assemble the rest of the class from the group of intellectually capable, and academically prepared, students who have other desirable characteristics. These are quite broadly based and include musical, artistic, and athletic accomplisments, leadership potential, public service aspirations... In this process, give some extra credit to those who have made it into the qualified group in spite of low income backgrounds and limited educational opportunities. Couple this with the financial aid that make it possible for these students to attend.</p>
<p>An individual college, like Brown, can decide how many academic stars it wants, and tailor its admissions accordingly. This becomes an important decision for the education it offers. If the college wants to have a limited range of academic rigor, then it has to bring in students who fit that range. The flagship state universities admit students, and have courses for them, who would drown at a place like Brown. The top students at the elite publics are indistinguishable from the top students at the Ivies. So the state schools offer education to a wider range of students. This is their mission, but it is expensive, and compromises are made in class size. Brown seeks to offer smaller classes and a fairly rigorous education for everyone. So it has to limit the number of low academic people it accepts, and try to ensure that all of them will be able to thrive in the Brown environment. I have not seen the evidence, but you seem to be suggesting that Brown is moving toward a narrower range of academic preparation, with higher hs gpa and test scores. I do not see this as inherently good or bad, just a location along a spectrum.</p>
<p>Society can devote far more resources to K-12 education, not just traditional academic offerings, but the enrichment that is standard in upper middle class families. Right now, the poor education provided to those who cannot either move to an expensive neighborhood or pay for private school is shameful in a wealthy country. It is also a threat to our future. Think about the difference in academic performance we see in K-12 in the US vs many other poorer countries. There is no excuse for it. But that is another rant.</p>