"… But something’s been bothering me, and Ms. Littlefair helped me figure out what it is. An “extra” half a million dollars is too mind-boggling a sum for me to imagine. However, 1.8% of that – $9,000 – is an amount I can begin to relate to.
Which made me wonder if people like me are part of the problem. When my kids were in school we absolutely ponied up when it was clear that private tutors would help. Maybe, albeit on a smaller scale, this is not so different from what Lori Loughlin or Karen Littlefair did. Unlike Littlefair and (allegedly) Loughlin, I did not break the law, but I did use the financial resources I have, that many people don’t have, to give my kids a leg up. What I did was legal, but was it fair?" …
This is a thought provoking question. If we mark tutoring as unethical than sports coaching, SAT prep, college consultant, music lessons, using connections to get internships, using legacy connection, using URM status, using vague learning disabilities to get extra time on tests etc also should come under scrutiny.
Whether or not any of these are considered “unethical” by whatever definition, most of these highlight the substantial advantages that parental money can buy and that high SES is associated with that make for a very unlevel playing field between students of similar academic ability and motivation.
One other advantage of parental money is that students with more parental money available for college have a much wider choice of colleges than those who have little or no parental money available for college. For most students, cost limitations are the primary “fit” factor in choosing a college, or whether they can attend college at all.
So would paying for private schooling be part of the problem as well? Doing anything for your kids?
I do agree that there is a big inequality problem in the US. What that argues for, then, is
Higher taxes on the rich
To fund more free quality public magnet programs and schools for promising kids. A school like Stuy is filled with lower SES kids and it gives them opportunities they would otherwise not have.
Yes, students with more money have many advantages. But that’s not the whole story. Just about everyone, of all income levels except for the very highest, has to make choices of how to spend their money, and allocate accordingly.
Take two families making $80K, or pick a number. Let’s look at one simple scenario…Family 1 has a mortgage that requires 30% of their income, Family 2 mortgage is 15% of their income. The second family spends that extra money on music lessons, sports lessons, ACT tutoring, whatever.
Seems wise, not unfair.
Stuy is 75% Asian, and yes, the students have access to opportunities they might not have had. But, I for one don’t think Stuy, and its admission process, should be used as a well considered example, or template for other cities to emulate. To me it’s a model that has led to test prep gone awry, and the ever present unintended consequences.
We thought long and hard before pulling our kid out of public school for private college prep HS. I was very active at school and volunteered in classrooms weekly for years. I do believe that if everyone had to send their kids to public school, the quality of education would be better for all.
That said, I think we are probably like most parents in that we are selfish when we come to our kid. She had one shot of a good education and we weren’t willing to gamble with keeping her in a school with so few academic opportunities.
We didn’t hire tutors or admissions consultants but we also didn’t have to because that was built in to her school.
Bottom line is that the socioeconomic divide and advantages from growing up with relative wealth are very real.
My point wasn’t the race (I know we can’t discuss that), but lack of diversity. That, plus other unintended consequences, makes me uncomfortable using Stuy as a model to emulate.
Edited to add: even though many Stuy students are low SES, many families still spend a significant amount of time and money on test prep for the entrance exams. There are many articles about this that one can google.
“even though many Stuy students are low SES, many families still spend a significant amount of time and money on test prep for the entrance exams. There are many articles about this that one can google.”
Yes, because
Some families value academic achievement more.
Some kids are in environments that are not conducive to learning.
Stuy in decades past had more URM, but then tracking was eliminated and the number of URM who went to Stuy plummeted. So if you want a more diverse Stuy, support implementing tracking in NYC public schools again.
BTW, I often find ideas of what people consider “diverse” peculiar. A college where the majority of the student body is upper-middle class or above and the vast majority are from a Judeo-Chtistian cultural background but with the “proper” racial mix is “diverse” but a HS with a mix of all different colors, creeds, cultures, races, religions . . . is not?
Would Stuy be considered more diverse if “Asia” was split in to NE Asia, SE Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East?
You can always take a “pay it forward” approach to tutoring. My kids had some math and test prep tutoring, but now they volunteer as free tutors at the local community center. They have also taught at summer enrichment programs for kids from disadvantaged communities. They use some of the best techniques that they learned from their teachers and one-on-one tutors. In some areas, they are better than the professional tutors because they are recent high school graduates and are more familiar with the current topics and trends in the courses.
My kids started in public school and while my daughters were obedient and not creating much waves, my son absolutely hated it. Classes were boring, he was told not to work “too fast”, etc. He was rebelling and I had to pick him from school more than one time. In the end, I moved all of them to private school. The kids told me that what would be covered in public school in one week, was covered in private school in 3 days. No more calls back home, teachers somehow managed to awaken their interest. As far as high school, we had the choice of magnet school versus private versus online. My son opted for online and the girls went to magnet schools. we were lucky to have these options and not for one minute did I feel that it was unfair, since none of these things came from thin air, we worked years to make them happen.
Giving to charity and helping a fellow in need is one thing but having generic feelings or " guilt and inequality" because you did your duty as a parent, is juvenile at best.
I agree. College admission and aid is an only example which exists and for a small percentage and it usually ends at them because very few who benefit, go back to help their communities, unless they want to run for office. Their success does give hope to others which is priceless.
If I spent the money I allocated to soccer for the last 4 years towards tutoring/test prep my son would probably be way ahead of the game scholastically.
Growing up low income in a fairly affluent area, it was normal for me to see my peers have private teachers and take prep classes.
Tutoring is perfectly fine in my opinion - there will always be an advantage to having resources without a doubt.
However, I believe it depends on individual choice, similar to what @Mwfan1921 mentioned (if I am understanding correctly).
I’m sure quality of life for my family would be MUCH better if we decided to live near the rural cornfields of Urban or somewhere similar. Larger house, cheaper gas, food, etc.
Education will probably fall short compared to where my family chose to live - a single bed and bed apartment for a family of 3, expensive gas, expensive food (for the most part), and etc.
Education where we live, however, is TOP NOTCH, I would say - by the way my family makes around $17k roughly before tax.
That being said, I think all income levels have some degree of choice, and I think that is, for me, “equality of opportunity”. I’m not saying it’s not “easier” for my more affluent peers to have certain results, but I had access to the samr opportunities as them.
What is this, more parental guilt being heaped? We all want our kids to be “able.” Absolutely nothing says DH and I were qualified to give all the support they needed, all sorts. We also made the effort to get one psych counseling when needed.
But nor does paying for tutoring automatically mean some college advantage. I generally see it as a form of “catch up,” no? There’s an issue and you take some step to improve it? It either takes or it doesn’t. The thinking is too dang simplistic, if you ask me. Some insisting that money is always an advantage. That without gobs of money, you’re doomed. And that with it, all things are possible. That’s not life, as I see it.
Tutoring and support are available in other ways than paying exhorbitant fees. It’s not perfect, but might be more fruitful if the topic more often turned to how kids can help each other. But, nooo. It’s got to be money and guilt?
Of course, if family 2’s extra spending is needed to compensate for inferior public schools and opportunities in the cheaper house area, the comparison is less obvious.
But, either way, it does means that parental choices are a big factor in the kid’s opportunities.
There are so many resources wealthy can access. There are many resources low income families have access to. Middle class families doesn’t have access to or eligibility for either. They have to make serious sacrifices with their limited resources so their children can compete with others…