<p>I, too, believe that low-income students (especially those from under-performing schools) with comparable scores to those who enjoy higher incomes should be given an edge in the admissions process. Though both possess more-or-less the same numbers, the former cluster’s achieving them is (often) much more of a feat. </p>
<p>I’m a high school student on the poverty line, so I may be biased—but I also have a handful of close friendships with kids my age from affluent backgrounds, and I frequently note the stark differences between us. While a bit of this may be repetitive, I’d like to elaborate on what I mean:</p>
<p>For one, a disadvantaged student’s home life is likely more turbulent. While anyone, regardless of income, can reside in a dysfunctional environment, someone who faces an abysmal socioeconomic status may be more imperiled; often, the lack of a good family/lifestyle model, which is arguably more distinct in poor, rural areas with low literacy rates, can exacerbate issues. In my town, for example, teen pregnancies, drug habits and general illegal behavior abound. Most teenagers engage in sex- and drug-related activities, I know, but a poor kid is less likely to just dabble in them. Hard drug culture is often the /only/ culture disadvantaged kids are exposed to, and once they take that route, aids like rehab programs are far from their grasp.</p>
<p>Also, as others have mentioned, a low-income student may face the ever-present burden of financially supporting him or herself, and possibly his or her entire family. Single-parent households, which are common, create an even greater amount of stress. When a kid is forced to engage in hard labor for hours in the double-digits each week, it’s much more difficult for him to find the time (and the mental strength) to study, as opposed to a well-off kid who is given an allowance by his parents and has ample leisure time. Additional idiosyncrasies among the lower class can create obstacles as well; family members issue more laconic replies (I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote of a study on this, but I’m not sure…), discourage intellectual pursuits because they interfere with those of a religious kind (I’ve personally encountered this), generally place less emphasis on academic achievement because it isn’t necessarily “practical” or “politically correct” and on—and these traits effectively stifle an above-average student who naturally wants to please and “fit in” with those closest to him.</p>
<p>Underachievement is in the ether at underprivileged schools, if not at home. At my high school, there are no cliques that like to make esoteric Latin puns and plan study groups for the SAT II, as I’ve seen people discuss on CC. Instead, a kid who smuggles in a book to read between classes is automatically branded as someone who thinks he’s “better than everyone else”. Social ostracism marks a student who simply /cares/ about his GPA. We have no counselor to offer us sage advice on college decisions, but a woman who visits once a year to inform you of how many credits you need to graduate. </p>
<p>An issue stemming from a dearth of resources is likely present as well… Others here have already explained this, so I won’t go too deep into it.</p>
<p>But, yeah, my rambling aside: I contend that a kid from an egregiously poor background with a 700 SAT Reading score has demonstrated just as much initiative and tenacity, if not more, as one from a rich background who scored an 800 in the same section.</p>