<p>
[quote]
In the end, 1 percent education is as much a vision of life as it is a standard of academic achievement a recrudescence of social Darwinism disguised as meritocracy. Where the gap at the countrys best schools was once about money who could afford to attend? now there is the pretense that it is mostly about intelligence and skill. Many 99 percenters are awed by the accomplishments of 1 percenters, especially as the gap between rich and poor in SAT scores and college completion widens.</p>
<p>Whatever this does to education, it also undermines the underpinnings of the social contract.</p>
<p>The danger isnt just that people who are born on third base wind up thinking they hit a triple; the danger is that everyone else thinks those folks hit triples. One percent education perpetuates a psychology of social imbalance that is the very antitheses of John Deweys dream.
<p>Well, given that about half the students in top-tier colleges have an EFC of $0 (e.g. their family income is <$60,000,) I’d say Mr. Gabler doesn’t know what he’s talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? What exactly does this have to do with the Social Contract?</p>
<p>So, what would be a better plan for HYPMS etc? Should they be open enrollment? Should the SAT/ACT expectations be lowered considerably? Should they stop looking at EC’s? I’m not sure what the author would suggest.</p>
<p>It is the issue of proportionality that stands out to everyone and is the issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because one doesn’t have a solution at hand, doesn’t mean the thesis is not correct. </p>
<p>The solution isn’t akin to rearranging selection criteria (akin to rearranging the chairs on the titanic). To me the solution might just be you have the same high quality public education throughout the country, funded by income tax not property tax…so at least kids start off on the same footing and get the same education to begin with. The issue is one of social mobility which, despite American’s claim to own the “American dream”, they are woefully behind most other developed countries when it comes to social mobility. The culprit is the education system and also the selection mechanisms in place.</p>
<p>There is likely some truth that the rich are also smarter and more driven than most on average and would pass that on to their children. Implying they (the kids) did nothing to get where they are is an insult to often very hard-working kids. Many would not want to be in the shoes of the children of the high-achieving. Two-edged sword.</p>
<p>@bovertine: I found this to be a very unusual word in this article… </p>
<p>RECRUDESCENCE</p>
<p>a new outbreak after a period of abatement or inactivity : renewal <a recrudescence="" of="" the="" symptoms=""> </a><a recrudescence="" of="" guerrilla="" warfare="">
etymology: from crudus, meaning raw</a></p><a recrudescence="" of="" guerrilla="" warfare="">
</a>
<p>" To me the solution might just be you have the same high quality public education throughout the country, funded by income tax not property tax…so at least kids start off on the same footing and get the same education to begin with."</p>
<p>The only way you can attempt to get all children on the same footing is to grow them in test tubes from the same DNA, and be raised by the exactly the same parents. So maybe the second set of kids grown from the same DNA raised by parents all grown from the same DNA might be on an equal footing. Of course, you’d have to insist that everyone has exactly the same income, must have a two parent family, and we can’t have any of that private schooling going on. Of course, there would still be outliers that might make different choices that would have to be “dealt with” in some way, if they do better than the others.</p>
<p>Obviously I’m being ridiculous, but the point is that you can make absolutely perfect schools everywhere, but since you can’t control the environment and the IQ of the most important people in children’s life, the fantasy of “equal footing” is nothing but a fantasy. You can take away all the money from the rich (ie everyone who makes one dollar more than me) and it is not going to create a better society for children whose parents (if they’re even around) just don’t care. The schools can’t do it all.</p>
<p>@performersmom:
Yes, thatjumped out at me too. I’m not ashamed to admit I never heard that word. It is the sort of word you can kind of figure out from the roots and of course the context. But I looked it up anyway. Now to work it into a conversation.</p>
<p>recrudesence- this word is used frequently in the HG Wells short novel-The Island of Dr. Moreau, eg- “The recrudesence of the flesh”, (when animal characteristics reappear on the Dr.'s genetically altered semi human creatures.)</p>
<p>Obviously. But when you compound the impact of substandard parenting (not within society’s power to control) with unequal schooling (well within society’s power to control), you make an already serious problem worse.</p>
<p>And starbright has hit the primary culprit on the head: property tax as the principal method of funding schools. In the county I live in, there are two adjacent school districts. Live in one, pay a property tax rate of about $3.30, and send your kid to schools that have about $19,000 to spend per student. Live across the district line, pay a tax rate of over $8, and send you kid to schools that have about $11,000 per student. (The first district is home to a nuclear generating station and a lot of very productive farmland; the second district consists solely of a small lower-middle-class city.)</p>
<p>However, in Newark, they spend more per pupil than in Westfield or Chatham. You can look up the reputation of the areas, but to summarize: Westfield and Chatham are desirable suburbs, and Newark is urban inner city.</p>
<p>You can not clearly say that the money is the problem. </p>
<p>As to the reference of 30,000 plus per student in Avalon, this is the bonus for those who live year round in some of the NJ seaside communities. The year round residents are few, but the towns are very rich from all the summer traffic and summer folks. There are very few students that really fall into these categories since the year round residents are few. Yes it seems like a lot to spend, and I have met folks who moved to these areas because they say the schools are better than private schools. </p>
<p>if the number of Pell Grantees at H really has increased to nearly a fifth of the Frosh class…that is a staggering change. 1 percenters on each end. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably, more like the top 5% of families income. But close enough. (Some private colleges are 65+% full pay.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source please? (Not worth looking, since it doesn’t exist and is not true.) Yes, approx. half of the students at HYPS receive need-based financial aid, but remember, HYP’s definition of “need” goes up to $180k income. And half of Columbia’s and Darmouth’s students qualify for need-based aid, but that includes families with six figure incomes. Ditto Pomona & Stanford.</p>
<p>Take Brown for example. <40% qualify for need-based grant aid; thus ~60% are full pay. Penn is similar. Ditto Colgate.</p>
<p>While I agree the method of funding schools is not fair, it’s certainly not all about money. Our parents/grandparents got a good education in relatively poor districts because THEIR parents insisted they study hard and do good work. </p>
<p>When poor kids are surrounded by a culture that does not value education and even mocks them for valuing education, it is very easy for them to give up and join the rest at the bottom of the pool. </p>
<p>I don’t know what the solution is. Some kids just need better parents.</p>
<p>The author is provincial- he is missing the fact that most of the top 1% in this country won’t be at the schools he is talking about nor anywhere near them. Many will be at their flagship U’s without bothering to even apply to HYPS. The top 1% of intelligent students in this country don’t automatically follow his cultural values or care about them. There is a lot of very worthwhile life outside of the NY Times local readership area and many, many more highly intelligent people than bother with business or his part of this country. HYP are not the top schools in some fields as well.</p>
<p>I don’t think that increasing funding is the huge problem with our education system. True, having low funding definitely does cause problems and remove opportunities. But if I remember correctly, my very wealthy school district actually has lower funding per student than the Metro district. At the very least, I think teachers there are paid more, and private school teachers, even the top prep school ones, are paid less than them. So the quality of the education in the classroom definitely isn’t limited just to money.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the biggest problem in education is a lack of student engagement. People here aren’t just as putting as much effort into their education as in other places. I’ve heard about the miserable schedules in other countries (particularly East Asian ones), and even as a top student from one of the best schools in state, I cannot imagine having their workload. I don’t think that’s the solution, but if kids everywhere were working as hard as they do in other countries, we would have a different set of educational concerns.</p>
<p>Finally, addressing the article: I can’t read it right now, but I’m not sure what the problem is to begin with. Going to a top school definitely offers a lot of opportunities and advantages. However, like it’s been stated here, people can succeed regardless of their school. College definitely doesn’t define people forever.</p>
<p>So to all of you “money doesn’t matter folks:”</p>
<p>Do you think money doesn’t matter when a high school can afford to hire only one science teacher, to teach biology, chemistry, physics, general science, and earth science?</p>
<p>Do you think money doesn’t matter when a high school can afford to hire only one English teacher, who teaches sections of as many as 40 kids?</p>
<p>Do you think money doesn’t matter when a K-12 school district can afford to hire only one half-time art teacher?</p>
<p>Do you think money doesn’t matter when a high school cannot afford to offer any honors or AP courses of any kind?</p>
<p>Do you think money doesn’t matter when a high school cannot afford to offer any courses in consumer education, industrial arts, computer science, or math beyond pre-calculus?</p>
<p>If your answers to those questions are “no, money doesn’t matter,” then why aren’t you lobbying the school boards who control where your kids go to school to save the taxpayers money by dropping honors, APs, art, English electives, etc.?</p>
<p>No, money isn’t the whole answer. But it’s a huge part of the answer.</p>