<p>What exactly are rich kids supposed to do to be "worthy" of admission to an elite college? You've already said that having top grades means they don't care about "true" knowledge. Also, high SAT's mean nothing because they can be bought. EC's also don't count because poor people aren't encouraged to join them. What's left?</p>
<p>Galo, Then as I said, F*****g do something about it! You are just complaining on a message board, why don't you like organize a protest about it instead of riling random people on the internet? It's annoying and seems kind of wasteful if you are really as concerned as you say you are.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but there is almost no difference in how people treat one another if you're poor or rich. There's plenty of poor people at my school (and plenty of rich ones too) and I see absolutely no discrimination based on socioeconomic status (maybe racial, but not by wealth). </p>
<p>I'd say "cry more". It has never been more socially mobile than now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't get it. I'm not complaining for myself. I have been incredibly lucky by the Grace of Providence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I get it. I wasn't arguing for it either way, I was presenting what he said. Which was not an attack on international students or an attempt to relegate you to second class status as you oh so righteously got riled up about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But my peers of the same socioeconomic status? There's this incredibly bright Somalian girl who I've helped tutor in calculus. But gee, she won't be attending college, because her parents don't think she needs to go to college, and none of the school authorities take notice of course.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since when do school authorities have the right to make parents send their kids to college? They don't. It's a sad story, but one that's repeated throughout the states when ignorant parents don't put an emphasis on higher education. She obviously does though since she sought you for free tutoring (I'm assuming free, since why would her parents pay for extra schooling but not college?). So why isn't she pushing the issue? Why didn't you push the issue? You blame the school counselors for not doing what you failed to do either!</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's this lower-income kid in special ed. I noticed him because one day he was observing the non-linear dropoff in sound intensity from a microwave (which made me smile) by comparing it to his voice as he walked away from the working microwave (where his food was cooking) in graduated steps. His caretakers must have thought his behaviour was retarded, because they continued ignoring him by talking to each other with a banal discussion of baseball. The irony was that his caretakers were the true retards, because they didn't do anything to foster his intellectual curiosity, and he had just personally discovered the inverse-square law! In the very least, if they had nurtured an intellectual ambition, he would be in the road to community college -- social skills would be his only problem. But guess what -- I saw a poster in the special ed department the other day, where apparently he was one of the "successes" because his employer was willing to overlook his "mental disability" and he had found a job sweeping busses. Fun stuff.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, the parents are primarily to blame. Why aren't they pushing their kid to be better? Community colleges are open for classes, there's nothing preventing him from taking it. You make it sound as if the school locked him out of higher education. Also, teachers aren't allowed to have a conversation with each other during lunchtime?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have a Sudanese schoolmate who knows most of the vernacular Arabic dialects from the Maghreb to the Horn of Africa to the kind spoken near Iraq, ON TOP of Classical Arabic. No mean feat, if you know the historical linguistics of Arabic (they are arguably separate languages, not dialects). She effuses gregariousness and unites the different immigrant students together. She's a dedicated track runner. She escaped rape and civil war in her home country. But she was an immigrant student who didn't know she could assert her rights, and in fact she's not a very assertive person [why she enjoys the respect she does]. But she gets shafted in this manner, and her counselors don't even take into account her immense potential at least in the field of languages -- they just think she's another refugee student from Africa. Remedial math with awful teachers woohoo.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Math has nothing to do with languages, maybe she's very mathematically challenged? When you're brilliant in one area, as she seems to be, sometimes there's a countering lack in another. You don't just get put in remedial math on a whim, maybe you could clarify here?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are right. There's no cutoff that says if you're poor you can't join this class or this club. BUT THE CULTURAL TREATMENT YOU GET IS VERY DIFFERENT.</p>
<p>The wasting of intellectual potential to me, is one of the worst crimes there can possibly be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I completely agree with you on the second count. Your examples of the first are not very good, though it's variably true. Some schools are like that, some aren't at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You wealthy people do not seem to get the chilling effect of self-segregation which pervades the schools. And the school authorities do not notice it, and do not bother fighting it. When I commented about it as a submission to the literary magazine, it was censored.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I'm not wealthy. Secondly, there's very little school authorities can do to fight self-segregation. My gosh, you just blame the school for everything. What do you expect them to do? Outline a plan that would work please. Your article, however, should not have been censored.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was taught to expect a right to education, which I asserted. And I feel rather guilty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Assertiveness is good to a certain extent. Why do you feel guilty? Nobody out in this world other than your parents is going to baby you. You want something? Earn it. Seize opportunities. Nobody's going to give you handouts. The advantage here among the educated middle class is that they know the value of an education and how important it is to work hard. It's silly to resent them for that.</p>
<p>The OP complains about opportunities but does not even take his/her classes seriously. The OP's posted academic record was fairly mediocre. Of course, the OP attributes this to being a true intellectual.</p>
<p>I frankly cannot sympathize. The school district actively tried to suppress my intellectual growth. They didn't just not encourage me, which is what the OP is complaining about. I ended up about 3 years behind in math where I should have been according to my original placement tests because they decided I was too advanced. They would give me placement tests for half the year so that I wouldn't learn any math, and then the next year they would "lose" all my placement tests. This happened for 4 years. In response, I decided that I was going to be an phenomenal student and make sure that I maximized what opportunities. It wasn't an ideal educational situation, but I don't begrudge those who achieved more than I did because, say, their parents were physicists and they could teach them on their own or happened to have a more cooperative school district.</p>
<p>I agree with collegealum. The OP can't get around the argument that there are opportunities available in this country for those who truly seek them. The OP can claim that there are different opportunities available for the rich, but they don't really count on college applications. After all, aren't opportunities like science and writing competitions available to all, regardless of socioeconomic status? </p>
<p>With this, don't scholarship opportunities favor the poorer, multiethnic students? In the OP's original post, they claimed that the rich have more opportunities which the poor never can have, but, once again, the argument is still that there are opportunities for all who seek them.</p>
<p>On the affirmative action argument, the OP claims that there is some 'modern affirmative action,' which does take into account whether or not the student has encountered hardships. What evidence do you have of this? I don't think anyone has ever heard of AA where 'hardships,' are taken into account, AA only looks at race.</p>
<p>Let me simplify what I think the OP is trying to say:</p>
<p>The scenarios he presents are:</p>
<p>1) A rich father donates $1000000 to the school, his dumb child gets in.</p>
<p>2) A rich father is able to pay for his child's education, whereas a brighter child who cant pay can't get in.</p>
<p>3) A rich kid can afford to go to build homes in Africa or look after the poor, as many of the rich do. A poor kid can't, and hence cannot write about such an experience on an application.</p>
<p>4) The rich seem always to participate in more ECs, driven by the fact that probably they have lesser worries to make a living etc.</p>
<p>I think even if we disregard number 2, numbers 1, 3 and 4 are perfectly valid scenarios and I myself have seen that happen. Furthermore, rich kids are born naturally with an iq higher than those of the poor kids, and the class divide already manifests itself in a child's early age. Thus a cycle of wealth can be said to be in place. Yes, one can rise from it, but it generally takes more hard work and a lot more determination for a poor chap to succeed than a rich one.</p>
<p>I think the OP does have some justifications in his claims.</p>
<p>An article on the class divide you might want to see, dealing with the relative abilities of the rich and the poor in the UK:</p>
<p>Britain's</a> class divide starts even before nursery school | Politics | The Observer</p>
<p>An research by the London School of Economics says that by the year 2200, the world will be divided into two distinct classes of people. One, the rich, will be characterized by a good built, prominent physical features, high intelligence and success. And the poor will be characterized by weak built, blunt features and sub-human intelligence, being largely the servants and slaves of the ruling elite. The middle class will virtually vanish. Seems a far prospect, what say?</p>
<p>2, 3 and 4 have no relevance in tier 1 schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was taught to expect a right to education, which I asserted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In the U.S., there is no "right" to a college education. It is privilege offered to those who earn it through academics, and pay for it, via cash or financial aid. </p>
<p>I have good news for you. If you are offended by the "privileged" culture at America's elite universities, Berea is an excellent u that admits only lower income intellectuals, like yourself. Perhaps its not too late to be admitted, or perhaps you can transfer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me simplify what I think the OP is trying to say:</p>
<p>The scenarios he presents are:</p>
<p>1) A rich father donates $1000000 to the school, his dumb child gets in.</p>
<p>2) A rich father is able to pay for his child's education, whereas a brighter child who cant pay can't get in.</p>
<p>3) A rich kid can afford to go to build homes in Africa or look after the poor, as many of the rich do. A poor kid can't, and hence cannot write about such an experience on an application.</p>
<p>4) The rich seem always to participate in more ECs, driven by the fact that probably they have lesser worries to make a living etc.</p>
<p>I think even if we disregard number 2, numbers 1, 3 and 4 are perfectly valid scenarios and I myself have seen that happen. Furthermore, rich kids are born naturally with an iq higher than those of the poor kids, and the class divide already manifests itself in a child's early age.</p>
<p>I think the OP does have some justifications in his claims.
[/quote]
Those are not really valid claims.</p>
<p>For number 1: The OP complains about the rich being those who make over 100k a year. These families do not have the resources for donating millions of dollars. Furthermore, development admits represent so little of any college's student body that it is unlikely that their spots would to anything to displace a poor kid's. If anything these people help the poor because their donations serve to endow the college with financial aid resources.</p>
<p>For number 2, almost all top colleges are need blind.</p>
<p>For number 3, these extracurriculars aren't unique or impressive anymore. Admissions people know that financial resources can effect one's travel and take that into account.</p>
<p>For number 4, if a poor kid cannot participate in ECs due to their duty to make money for their family, then those jobs that he does will count as ECs themselves.</p>
<p>OP,
So people should be punished for being in a non-war zone? Hmm...</p>
<p>regardless, you should think of those "rich spoiled brats" as paying your FA. Their full ride helps make your schooling more affordable.</p>
<p>You use the number $100,000, and also suggest that it is a reasonable assumption as the 'midpoint' of the people at these prestigious colleges.</p>
<p>The median income of a family with a college aged kid in the US is $76,000. After adjusting for the correlation between IQ and income, to see $100,000 at the midpoint is actually likely artificially low relative to getting the 'best' students(my hypothesis, and I'm not saying this is a bad thing). That suggests that we are working towards boosting the lower income groups.</p>
<p>You seem to think that $100,000 could afford you private boarding school and colllege(quite possibly $400,000 total) which is laughable, and also that this would get you into a top college. In order to get into Harvard or the like, it is actually recommended to go to a good public school over a private boarding school, because there is a reaction against private schools limiting admissions, and the student body is exceptionally bright at these schools.</p>
<p>And a vacation to Spain or some such event is not the providence of the 'upper' (and $100,000 is NOT the upper, but whatever) class. If a parent flies and earns frequent flier miles as part of their job, a cost conscious family could easily have that vacation for under $1,000. $1,000 is still a large sum of money - but truly only a drop in the bucket when looking at the costs of cars, houses, and the other expenses of in America. It is 1/200th an 'elite' education.</p>
<p>And to criticize the system for noticing some students but not others? That is independent of wealth, but lies on the student. If not for initiative the only time you see a couselor at my school is if you get suspended, or MAYBE when you submit your application. Yes, families who do care about education more are more likely to have this initiative. But how do you suggest this is solved? By rationing time so that all students meet equally, and everyone is equally deprived? This is not a world that runs on what is ideal - the law of diminishing marginal returns applies - efficient is of greater importance than perfect. Because without that everything would cease due to lack of resources(I can't pay for the FDA to check every piece of meat, just like your school can't afford 90 counselors to satisfy everyones needs).</p>
<p>Initiative is not a sin. It is what allows progress. If you want to be treated like a worthless number, sit back and let it happen. If you want to be better - DON'T. That is why colleges value those who go above and beyond. Those who create a charity and raise thousands of dollars. Those who create there own business and fill and are successful. If you want college to be charity than it will no longer have meaning. They seek those who seek them.</p>
<p>The people who can play the game of life better do better for themselves. That is all you are saying. Perhaps the kids do not have their own ambition and recieve it from their parents. That will prove itself soon enough. It is not like all Harvard graduates earn more than all community college grads.</p>
<p>If you want me to say that financial aid screws some people in this country, I'll say it. If you want me to say that our system is not perfect, a-fricking-men. If you want me to say that the college admissions system is unforgivably broken, I must disagree. We are not on an equal playing field. But in order to create one, we would have to destroy everything that has been built upon it.</p>
<p>And yes, Americans do lead wasteful lives. We use a freakishly high proportion of resources relative to our population. That is independent of college admissions. Our poor, our middle class, and our wealthy all do this. At the same time, the qualities of charity, leadership, and love for ones fellow man are among the most desired by colleges. Additionally, the 'green' movement is led by these prestigious schools, and that strikes out at this culture of waste. Yes, some people may be told to volunteer or whatever else by a friend or family who understands the 'game' being played better than they do. But those who are spoiled and truly 'brats' would not care enough to lead the lives desired by these schools. Some may slip through, too bad. But the people going to the best colleges bear a strong correlation to being the 'best' people. The people who will give you a hand if you need it. The people who will volunteer for the sake of helping others, not recognition or reward. The people who see injustice and fight against it. This is independent of their income. No these groups are not the same, and the best people find themselves at all rungs academically and economically. But the winning ticket in college admissions seems to come to these people much more often than those who would not appreciate it and would not make the most of their opportunity.</p>
<p>I cannot help but disagree with almost every last letter of your posts. They seem utterly unaware of so many positives in the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me simplify what I think the OP is trying to say:</p>
<p>The scenarios he presents are:</p>
<p>1) A rich father donates $1000000 to the school, his dumb child gets in.</p>
<p>2) A rich father is able to pay for his child's education, whereas a brighter child who cant pay can't get in.</p>
<p>3) A rich kid can afford to go to build homes in Africa or look after the poor, as many of the rich do. A poor kid can't, and hence cannot write about such an experience on an application.</p>
<p>4) The rich seem always to participate in more ECs, driven by the fact that probably they have lesser worries to make a living etc.</p>
<p>I think even if we disregard number 2, numbers 1, 3 and 4 are perfectly valid scenarios and I myself have seen that happen. Furthermore, rich kids are born naturally with an iq higher than those of the poor kids, and the class divide already manifests itself in a child's early age.</p>
<p>I think the OP does have some justifications in his claims.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1 - Sure, that happens but it's rare. Not as prevalent as you think since it takes more than a million.</p>
<p>2 - This is accidentally your most valid point, so I have no clue why you'd disregard this. The greatest disadvantage for students from poor families is that they may get into a great college but not get enough aid. They have to load up on financial safeties. Though this doesn't affect actually admission INTO the college.</p>
<p>3 - I don't know what world you live in but the number of students that go to volunteer in Africa are very very few. Applicants are also strongly discouraged to write essays that display their wealth, as someone said earlier. It's a negative.</p>
<p>4 - Maybe, but I know plenty of rich kids who barely did anything and spent their free time horsing around. I think what you mean is rich kids have the ability to participate in more ECs, which is true.</p>
<p>If we accept your theory that rich kids are naturally smarter, then what are you going to do about that? Ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut? Fantastic short story, here's the Wikipedia: Harrison</a> Bergeron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Our society rewards the most "fit" and able to succeed. There's also been highly intelligent people born from poverty. So are we somehow supposed to handicap the children of people who succeeded because they're likely to succeed with similar genes?</p>
<p>CollectivSyn - I believe what was being referred to with the 'smarter' line is that there is a pretty strong correlation between income and IQ, and one between parental IQ and child IQ. These are far from 1:1, but are certainly strong enough for some basis.</p>
<p>So is it because of the income that one's IQ is higher? Or is it because the IQ is higher that they are able to earn a better income?</p>
<p>^^^ What came first, the chicken or the egg?</p>
<p>You can raise your kid to have a higher IQ. Challenge them at a young age so their brain develops more/faster. I mean you're not going to get to the 180s if your kid was originally a 100. But I think you can go from 100 to 110 or even 120.</p>
<p>galoisien, you make all these references to instances where a kid has shown brilliance. How do you propose colleges see who gets in and who doesn't? Should colleges have recruiters that hang out around ALL the high schools in the US and make notes like sports recruiters? And besides, one instance of brilliance means nothing with regards to potential. One instance of brilliance will not get your through college.</p>
<p>And yes, I agree with you that the cultural treatment can be very different between poor and rich. And yes there is almost always self-segregation when you have non-homogeneous groups. But how does that effect one's opportunities to enter college? America is about equal opportunity (although this is not true in a lot of cases), not equal outcome. Whether or not someone seizes those opportunities is his problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The OP complains about opportunities but does not even take his/her classes seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh...? I'll take the other charge -- I have somewhere between a 3.5 and a 3.7 because for years I was too perfectionistic. I do sorely regret it, and I am even luckier to have escaped this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree with collegealum. The OP can't get around the argument that there are opportunities available in this country for those who truly seek them. The OP can claim that there are different opportunities available for the rich, but they don't really count on college applications. After all, aren't opportunities like science and writing competitions available to all, regardless of socioeconomic status?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure if you've actually witnessed the cultural divide between the two socioeconomic groups.</p>
<p>The opportunities exist, but the cultural encouragement doesn't -- and that's the one that matters most, on top of parental and school encouragement. I'm highly sympathetic with collegealum's (past?) plight, but at least he/she had been culturally pushed enough to recognise he/she was being shafted.</p>
<p>The reactions from most of you remind me of those reactions from those detailed in Malcolm X's autobiography. "Why are you bringing this up?" "The situation has never been better!" But again a lot of you seem blissfully unaware of the chilling effect. I mean, there was nothing stopping many black students in the 1930s from being more than a shoeshiner or a carpenter, but in order to do so, he had to overcome <em>lots</em> of cultural inertia. </p>
<p>Rich kids simply "go with the cultural flow" to success.</p>
<p>I intend to do more, and have done more, than post on a messageboard. I push a lot of my socioeconomic peers -- and some of them have taken it to heart. But for a lot of them, it's going to take a lot more to counter the implicit segregation that has occurred from the very beginning of our lives. I was attempting to find kindred spirits. Guess there are too many rich people on CC. </p>
<p>Take for example bussing ..... "There's nothing stopping them from attending our schools ... they just have to be rich enough to buy property here!" </p>
<p>Perhaps you are unaware of the sheer power of cliques and peer-pressure especially when it comes to socioeconomic groups. Many EC's are dominated by the financially well-off students and the cliques they form. Sure you could join if you want ... but you'd feel out of place. Friends in the same cultural group encourage friends to join the same activities, fueling self-segregation. So it happens that with lower-income students the activities are of less legitimacy to colleges.</p>
<p>Perhaps some of you are familiar with Amartya Sen's works on multiculturalism, and of the phenomenon of thick/thin cultures. In many intellectual fields in the schools the wealthy form the "thin" cultures, against which those with "thick" characteristics find it hard to penetrate. Like there's nothing legally stopping them from penetrating that group, but you don't feel as comfortable -- you don't mix. I don't mix -- but I endured it. If a rich student's EC was dominated by lower-income students, as taken to initiative that student might be, he or she might decide to opt for an EC not out of bigotry, but for an EC where he/she could most likely mix. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Let me simplify what I think the OP is trying to say:</p>
<p>The scenarios he presents are:</p>
<p>1) A rich father donates $1000000 to the school, his dumb child gets in.</p>
<p>2) A rich father is able to pay for his child's education, whereas a brighter child who cant pay can't get in.</p>
<p>3) A rich kid can afford to go to build homes in Africa or look after the poor, as many of the rich do. A poor kid can't, and hence cannot write about such an experience on an application.</p>
<p>4) The rich seem always to participate in more ECs, driven by the fact that probably they have lesser worries to make a living etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sort of. I'm really more referring to a cultural chilling effect that is related to 3) and 4).</p>
<p>Try 5) a poor kid's friends and family do not recommend him or push him for EC X or AP class Y whereas a rich kid's friends and family will.</p>
<p>And that's not due to lack of initiative. You get treated differently based on how people perceive your background to be.</p>