<p>In regards to the original post, I spent 10 years of my life (born and raised) next to a shantytown in a developing country and am now at Northwestern with a 3.9 cumulative GPA. Upon moving to the US, I lived in Chicago's inner-city and attended Milton Academy for a year (on full scholarship + stipends) before dropping out.</p>
<p>Where are you from, sanjenferrer, if you don't mind my asking? I did not know that you were not originally from this country.</p>
<p>It must be National Skewed Perspectives Week, because I think Swissas' perception of public school is just as flawed and elitist as the OP's view of private schools.</p>
<p>Anyway, I have to agree with BIGTRIX and CollectivSynergy: in highly-taxed and metropolitan areas of the country, 100k won't get you very far, especially if you have multiple children or need to commute.</p>
<p>Im sure this has been echoed many times but welcome to the world. You got a problem with it, then do something about! How can you do something about it, friggin make something of yourself instead of whining on a godamn internet forum. Maybe if youve payed attention in class, you've heard of the term "rugged individualism" .</p>
<p>cheers,
mike</p>
<p>In reply to Swissas,
Although I personally do not attend a top boarding school, I can agree.
My dad is a grad from St. Pauls (if any of you don't know, it runs in the same league as Exeter and Andover, etc...average SAT is like 24 points lower than Exeter's 2073...)</p>
<p>He went to UCBerkeley and thought it was even easier than St. Pauls.
And at St. Pauls he was an average student. like a 3.3 back in the day.</p>
<p>In reply to post #142 I do have a point of reference. I went to public school in Switzerland and am also a tutor at a Boston Public School.</p>
<p>Swissas, neither of those are very good places to see how the American public school system works. Swiss education is more like the British education system, while the U.S. does not "sort" its students as much, nor provide as many resources for students better-suited to technical or manual work. And tutoring at an inner-city school? Sorry, but spending your time with the students who struggle most at an already underfunded, understaffed, and over-enrolled school is not the way to find public-schoolers who shine. True, there are some brilliant minds who take advantage of the opportunities presented to them at inner-city schools, but I would argue that you'd find a higher density of ambitious and brilliant students at suburban high schools, where parents tend to be more educated and to stress the importance of education on their children. Regardless of your experiences, attaching all public-schoolers to "Podunk High School" is not fair to those of us who did not think it was necessary to go to Phillips Andover to have a passable education.</p>
<p>@ Swissas: </p>
<p>I don't really know what the point of your "Powdunk high school" term is, because while the public high school students you refer to may be full of themselves, aren't a lot of prep school kids who simply got into these elite schools because of privilege and waste their time also completely full of themselves? </p>
<p>I mean, seriously, boo hoo, some people don't realize how hardworking and awesome prep school students are. I suggest you take your own advice and suck it up.</p>
<p>The only reason I am on CC is because this is my primary source of information... </p>
<p>I would never say I'm poor. It wouldn't do justice to the world's 85% making less than my family does. However, in the US I'd be considered lower middle class. My school has maybe ten percent go on to four year colleges every year. The best school kids know about is Berkeley... They genuinely think I'm pulling their legs when I tell them I'm going to apply to anywhere better like Stanford for their new financial incentive program. </p>
<p>Let's look at the bigger picture. How many high schoolers are there? How many people go to schools like Phillip Andover? Not too many. I don't even know which state it's in... So what's the big deal? Who cares about elitism, or poverty and all those complicated debates on educational quality, ECs, opportunities... Just make the best of your circumstances. I'm happy where I go to... I like my school. :)</p>
<p>Like many institutions of venerable status, Phillips Andover is in the Cradle of Liberty.</p>
<p>Also known as Massachusetts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
100k = not above middle class anywhere near NYC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The 2006 census gave NYC an average household income of $46,480. It can't have risen too much since then.</p>
<p>The OP has a point... many of us are living in a privileged world and not even realizing it. 100k = above average everywhere, except for perhaps in certain suburban enclaves.</p>
<p>"He also invents some imaginary world where every rich kid has counselors working on their essays and their parents stay home to help them on their homework every night."</p>
<p>Certain schools are way over-represented in programs like RSI, TASP and such, which demonstrates that many affluent schools do have counselors who work to ensure that their students get such opportunities and are well-prepared for them. My HS counselors were completely clueless about anything and totally unhelpful- they didn't even know our own school policies on many topics. </p>
<p>Also, while the affluent may not personally help their kids with homework, they certainly make tutors available to them.</p>
<p>^^If a kid needs a tutor, he's probably not in contention for an ivy anyway, because you can only boost a kid so much. And if he needs a tutor, he won't be able to win academic awards or have time for EC's. So it's kind of a moot point. I don't know if public magnet schools are different from Exeter in terms of the quality of the counselors, but I know my counselor was completely unhelpful. We had access to research opportunities, but other than that they didn't help us with anything. (And if a school has research opportunities, it means the only way to stand out is to make finalist of Intel because everybody's doing it.) I met my counselor senior year where she just asked me what schools I was applying to. From the outside, though, people must have assumed we had a lot of help because the students were racking up a lot of important awards. It was a great education, but tailoring student's application for success in college admission or prepping for contests was antithetical to the school philosophy so it didn't happen.</p>
<p>I can't agree with that at all. Having access to a knowledgeable tutor can make all the difference between timely getting help with understanding an especially difficult problem in chemistry or calculus and having to try to figure it out (or not) on your own. Such help hardly precludes one from winning competitions or having time for ECs - quite the opposite.</p>
<p>Gifted and talented low income students lack the necessary access to capital or the services that such access clearly provides. Those more affluent students have such access from birth, and are generally provided with the tools to succeed, along with the guidance to utilize those tools. This provides them with enormous and almost insurmountable advantages over their disadvantaged peers.</p>
<p>I do think the OP focuses too much on income - and some of the subsequent posters are correct that there is no bright line test of affluence. Rather than looking solely at income, a better measure of affluence would take wealth into account - which should include all assets, including real property, investments and even degrees or certifications held by parents.</p>
<p>Keshira, I'll keep this short since I need to hit the sack, but that statistic is heavily, heavily skewed to the left. This is an instance where the median is a very poor approximation. For anyone who has resided in NYC, this isn't even an argument. Especially when considering the weight of one or two college tuitions and lack of aid since 100k is nominally high.</p>
<p>In case you want solid numbers, NYC's CoL is almost twice many areas in the country. So on top of nearly halving your real disposable income, you're hit with triple taxes. I'll sum it up for you, 100k in NYC is roughly equivalent to 50k in many other places. This isn't even taking into account the inflated real estate prices, which makes it almost impossible to own an apartment if you're not some high-powered lawyer, doctor, or banker. Does that seem middle class now?</p>
<p>Unless you are living in a rent-controlled apartment paying $248 (or even less!) a month for Manhattan rent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I could give you the long answer, but I'm just going to drop a few terms because it's so late at night. Ask if you want me to clarify.</p>
<p>Categorical imperative. Social contract. Mutual benefit. Rule of law.
[/quote]
That is extremely vague and I have little doubt know that your "explanation" would be any less vague since you included the word "social contract".</p>
<p>You don't like social contract theory? :( </p>
<p>This is the argument you posted:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Self-interest is not a first principle. Why? Killing would be acceptable if it gave one person a benefit. If killing is good for the person killed, then it must be fine for that murderer to accept violence from any and all other people against their objection.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But if you remember reading Locke, Rousseau and such, they started from the premise of each individual in the State of Nature using Natural Rights for his own self-benefit and gain. Of course, if each man did what he wants without regard to the self-benefit of other individuals, we get Hobbes' War of All against All. So each man must abridge such rights to form social contract rights. But why did social contract rights form? From the original premise of Natural Rights, that in being abridged in scope, end up being achieved at a higher level.</p>
<p>Similarly this applies to self-interest. If I work for my self-interest without regard for your self-interest, then others may work for their self-interest without regard for my self-interest. Ultimately society forms laws which designates "fundamental unconditional rights" that form the core of a rule of law that <em>maximises</em> self-interest.</p>
<p>So I don't see why self-interest <em>isn't</em> a first principle. Libertarianism, with its "brook no interference unless others' liberties are at stake" maximises self-interest since self-interest is not actually abridged unless it harms other's self-interest. In this case an optimum is achieved, in both a philosophical and mathematical sort of way.</p>
<p>if the median family income is ~50k, how is that skewed to the left - it must be the new statistics - median means 50% above and 50% below that value - it isn't skewed.</p>