<p>
</p>
<p>So it’s a little more effort. If that’s what they have to do then they do it. That doesn’t mean they have any less time than anyone else.</p>
<p>UCB-
Even if they dont have a computer at home, they do have access to them at school, in the library, and probably many have cellphones with wifi. THis isnt about the “convenience” of an in-home computer. Its about access to one. If they want it, I truly believe they can find it.</p>
<p>
huh? where did you “hear” this??</p>
<p>Jym626, did your children sign up for the SAT Question of the Day? Did they come to you and tell you they found this great site which offers a free question every day, or did you point it out to them and ask them to sign up? And as UCBalumnus has pointed out, that program is most effective for students who have easy internet access.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being on a team takes time whether it is a luxury or not.</p>
<p>
Sorry, but I dont see it as different. My kid worked at a fast food place, babysat/transported the neighbors kid, had to travel an hour to/from school each day, etc. He worked not because he “had” to, but because he wanted to. But it took time and commitment and if he wanted to buy stuff he had to earn the $.</p>
<p>Kids learn time management. Plenty of middle class or upper class kids are also expected to work, help at home, care for/transport siblings, etc. There are plenty of kids, rich and poor, who are fortunate enough to have athletic ability and spend hours at games and practice. They learn time management. It is not different when it comes to time management. Now if you think their homelife is different, that may well be, but as for the time management, I disagree. Its the same 24 hrs they have to learn to manage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>25% of Emory students are going to be in the bottom 25% of the class, argbargy. Ain’t no way around that one. Even at Harvard.</p>
<p>“Let them eat cake” is running rampant. I had no idea that those who have been well educated could be so ignorant, and worse than that, unwilling to learn. I think this is precisely one of the reasons that colleges are striving for more diversification. It’s not just the lower SES who are dealing with ignorance.</p>
<p>Somuchtolearn-
In my state, the Governor made the SAT online prep stuff free for the public school kids. But not for the private school kids. If my kids wanted to use the on line SAT prep, they had to pay for it. Talk about unequal.</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that poor kids don’t have impediments to success. But once they are in college they need to do the things they need to do to succeed. It is incumbent on THEM to figure out how to succeed.</p>
<p>If a school sends information on how to communicate via email then set up the email. Find out what your deadlines are and meet them. If someone is giving you $50K per year for 4 years then figure out how to get the money. We are not talking about toddlers. It isn’t necessarily easy but if it is important then you figure out how to make it work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do. My D worked during high school, but if at any moment it would have impacted academics, we would have had her quit because academics came first. We had that luxury since it wasn’t as though her work dollars were paying the family’s electric bill. Similarly, she was able to do a volunteer opportunity that turned into a paying job precisely because she <em>could</em> volunteer - it didn’t matter to the family if she made money or not.</p>
<p>Jym626, and since you chose private school, you had to pay for tuition and maybe books as well. This is an analogy I’m not getting …</p>
<p>But for the record, it would be nice if it had been made free for everyone.</p>
<p>
[The</a> Condition of Education - Elementary and Secondary Education - Student Effort, Persistence and Progress - Employment of High School Students - Indicator 30 (2012)](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ehs.asp]The”>http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ehs.asp)</p>
<p>“In 2010, about 44 percent of employed high school students age 16 years and above from high-income families (the top 20 percent of family incomes) worked 15 or more hours per week, compared with 56 percent of employed students from middle-income families (the middle 60 percent of family incomes), and 62 percent of employed students from low-income families (the bottom 20 percent of family incomes).”</p>
<p>Proudpatriot, yes they do. But wouldn’t it be nice if there was someone to help show them the ropes and help set them up for success. It would be a win - win situation in my opinion. Since I’m full of analogies, although poor ones at that, it would be nice to throw a drowning person a life preserver rather than standing by idly. Or better yet, teach them how to swim before they hit the water.</p>
<p>My point is that time management, regardness of what it is that one has to manage, is a skill required of all, rich or poor. No one is saying that the poor have it “easy”. Must be hard to study in a living arrangement with multiple people in a small space. Oh wait. That sounds like a dorm.</p>
<p>Sorry for being flippant, but this is getting silly and way off topic.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s off topic at all. We are talking about the challenges poor students face in college. Many of their challenges start before they get there. Remember that there are some here who have spent pages arguing that poor kids should “sink or swim” and not have any services available to help them navigate parts of the college experience (self-advocacy, followup on financial forms, etc.) that are much more foreign to them than to students of higher means.</p>
<p>Poor analogy as the dorm student who wants to escape the late night stereo wars can simply go to the library, or any number of quieter areas available on campus. I’m sure this analogy is out of date with IPods and headphones, but I’m sure you get the idea.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Terrible linked article. Oh “‘Many’ sacrifice school for wages” very helpful. They came up with two examples. The referenced paper is just as bad. But Dobson does point to a Warren paper
<a href=“http://www.sagepub.com/drewstudy/pdf/Warren.pdf[/url]”>http://www.sagepub.com/drewstudy/pdf/Warren.pdf</a>
that does do a breakdown. </p>
<p>The group with the highest likelihood of working is Whites at 55%, and kids that are employed are mostly like to be at vocational highschools. </p>
<p>There are two employment groups, one of which the study authors term ‘excessive’ (15+ hours). In the 1-15 group you are more likely to have a job if you are SES. And working 1-5 hours is associated with positive outcomes. </p>
<p>You are most likely to work 15+ hours a week if you go to a vocational hs (44%)</p>
<p>Overall it does appear that all kinds of kids work, not just poor, and the effect is generally positive unless you take on more than 15 hours a week. Even then the data becomes clouded since the vocational students are unlikely to attempt college upon graduation. </p>
<p>After doing their regression analysis they conclude:
</p>
<p>Good grief people. Having worked with families in a homeless shelter with my family for 8+ years, even there they were taught computer skills and had access to the systems that we provided for them. Agree that learning self advocacy is an important life skill</p>
<p>Just glad I was a poor minority kid when it was not such a handicap.</p>
<p>I’m still catching up on the hundred or so posts- but want to BEG the moderator: if you decide to close this thread, as the admisisons one was, please at least drop a line letting us know why.</p>