<p>
</p>
<p>They aren’t. As a group, I’m sure that kids with parents with advanced degrees have a significant representation–probably more than in the general population. You can’t argue that having a parent with a graduate degree is a penalty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it? Or is it the other way around, in that if two students show the same academic credentials (grades, test scores, course selection at the same high school), the one from the lower SES background may have the greater actual achievement since s/he started with the disadvantages of lower SES?</p>
<p>I.e. if two runners reach the finish line at the same time (same grades, test scores, course selection at the same high school), but one started behind the other (lower SES), which one is the faster runner?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or justify arranging the system to be more favorable to inheriting the higher social status, instead of offering greater opportunity for next generation to reach higher social status based on their own achievements.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Yes, and that’s when things go wrong for a society. Sure, in the short run it may protect the next generation of elites, but in the long term…</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article which suggests that when the elites rig the system, eventually, the elites lose their status.</p>
<p>“The Self-Destruction of the 1 percent”</p>
<p><a href=“Opinion | The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent - The New York Times”>Opinion | The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent - The New York Times;
<p>
</p>
<p>I could, if the representation of such kids in selective colleges were lower than their representation in the pool of academically well qualified applicants. At present I don’t think there is much discrimination against applicants whose parents have college or graduate school degrees, but some people have advocated socioeconomic preferences, which would incorporate parental education.</p>
<p>I must say, as a mother of a student(urm) who busts her hump in 3 AP classes at an inner city magnet school, a college course at a local university AND a boat load of interesting EC’s is motivated, serious, ambitous, smart, et al. I am in awe by this thread.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that many on this thread think the point of elite universities is to help their graduates make more money than they would have otherwise. If I agreed with that, I might agree with their other statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Maybe there is a significant subset of families with lots of degrees who aren’t in the highest SES, maybe because they’re academics, and are poorly paid, and can’t live in the communities that have the best educational systems. </p>
<p>I speak from experience here.</p>
<p>collegealum: that is a disengious argument. The fact is we are all here discussing the fact, absolute fact, that SES effects academic and intellectual and musical and art and athletic development. So, given that we know, absolutely, that the best way to ensure the academic excellence of the next generation is the SES of the parent’s generation, acting as if the ability to move from class to class is not a mission of the educational class in this country is false. It is easy to say that money doesn’t matter when you have it.</p>
<p>I have it. I’m not for one second fooled that the fact that I have money has conferred significant advantages on my children’s intellectual development. </p>
<p>If you believe that the goal of an engineering major is not vocational, in nature, that’s fine. but, an engineering major is not pure math any more than a degree in econ is pure math any more than a degree in the humanities is a degree in the classics.</p>
<p>So, unless your kid wants to be a pure math major, or a classics major, I’m not sure what you are talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is one reason why I strongly disagree with grading on a curve. A STEM professor ought to establish what a student must master in order to move forward in the subject. I’d give that basic level a C. The professor should establish the levels of mastery required to receive a B and an A. If 50% of the students exhibit mastery at the A level, then 50% of the students should get an A. Students who displayed adequate mastery to move forward, the C level, should get what they earned, not be given Ds or Fs and artificially weeded out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, SES is correlated with academic and other kinds of development, but as I wrote in post #33, there are two channels operating:</p>
<p>(1) The high-SES parents are investing a lot in their kids.
(2) They are also passing on the genes for intelligence, industriousness, self-control etc. that helped them attain their high status. </p>
<p>Lots of people in this thread write as if only channel (1) is operative.</p>
<p>But how does an admissions officer know whether that high/low SAT score is the result of their ‘genes’ or their environment?</p>
<p>I think for you, it doesn’t matter in terms of college admissions. If you’re a bright kid who happens to not have access to certain programs that may help in admissions because of your SES, tough cookies? Right?</p>
<p>So it’s not all about drive, intelligence, etc., is it?</p>
<p>Re: post 71</p>
<p>No. I think what you see here is an argument that for a small group of kids, and it is vanishingly small, if you look at the real numbers, the ability to pull themselves up out of an incredibly difficult situation is just as indicative of good genes as the ability of those who’ve face no hardship, and have, in fact, had the benefit of better teachers, tutors, coaches, whatnot, due to their parent’s previous good fortune.</p>
<p>To be fair, I believe that denigrating the achievements of those born on third base, so to speak, does nothing I would consider valuable. And, I believe those achievements are as worthy as any by those who were disadvantaged. However, the narrow minded view that the only place from which the both gifted and economically lucky can attain a superior education is at a top ten university is wholey misguided and useless, and those with enough intellect to “pass on” good “genes” (this is a really yucky argument by the way: see eugenics), ought to be smart enough to teach their kids this fact.</p>
<p>A rising tide lifts ALL ships.</p>
<p>“Actually, they do exist in the liberal arts sphere, not just in humanities and lit. Just like in law school, nearly all STEM courses in undergrad have curves, which are rather strict Frosh year (just like L1).”</p>
<p>Sure, but that doesn’t control the C students’ chance at graduation or their employment outcomes. They can switch majors if they struggle too much in STEM, which has no parallel in law school. They won’t be looking for full-time jobs until senior year, when they will have had 4-6 additional semesters to bring their GPAs up, whether they stay in STEM or not. (Contrast law school where 1L grades are far more important than later ones.) Most importantly, the unemployed college grads are not necessarily the ones with lower GPAs. The unemployed law grads ARE overwhelmingly those with lower GPAs and those who failed the bar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never made such a statement about top ten universities. There is a lot of research indicating that intelligence has substantial heritability – why should mentioning this and incorporating this into one’s political views be “yucky”? Public policy should be based on reality, not egalitarian fantasy.</p>
<p>^I think we have a consensus that intelligence has no genetic basis. </p>
<p>Therefore, if you are affluent and your kids don’t win the Nobel Prize or something equivalent, it’s because you failed as parents.</p>
<p>There is significant evidence that heritablility is a combination of genetic predispostion and environmental factors.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but place a kid born of a genius in a home where there is not the same nutritional or even stimulants available and you get two completely different outcomes. You just can’t credibly make that argument in a vacuum. There is no “control group” to test. There is no real evidence to support anything other than the fact that kids who grow up with educated, mid to high SES lifestyle, receive a tremendous amount of a headstart.</p>
<p>ETA: so, if you want your priveledged kid to compete against those other kids with the same advantages? that’s how your kid stacks up as an academic, controlling for outside factors. Other kids, a tiny number, compete against other kids with that other level of advantage, controlling for outside factors.</p>
<p>So, your kid does not compete against the kid who had crap teachers in the inner city, but against the kids who had the same teachers and the same blah, blah, blah. If your kid doesn’t measure up? Don’t blame somebody else.</p>
<p>If you really believe that heredity is so much more important than environment, then it wouldn’t matter what school system your kid went to. But then why do so many parents move to certain school districts? Or ask for the ‘better’ teacher?</p>
<p>^skylr: I could just as easily say, “If you and others are so convinced that U. of Iowa is the same as Harvard, then why are you insistent that it is vital that certain people go there, that it’s lifechanging.”</p>
<p>No one said the University of Iowa is the same as Harvard. It’s not really the point of this thread and I hate to even go down this path, but since I was the one who brought up the Iowa hypothetical, I want to make my position clear. There’s nothing at all wrong with aspiring to get into the best school one can get into. That doesn’t mean it is necessary for one’s future success in life. That doesn’t mean if you are shut out of Harvard or whatever tippy-top school that you cannot achieve greatness. That is not to say there are not differences between even a good state school and the most elite schools.</p>