<p>It would seem to me that there is a more of a duty (for lack of a better word) for flagship state universities to reach out to underprivileged kids, than there is for the elites to do so. If the elites want to do so - great, more power to them - but to VP’s point (and I appreciate the snark behind it!), getting the underprivileged kid with otherwise-poor prospects to Good State U is going to provide the bulk of the benefit, not the cherry-on-top of Amherst or another elite.</p>
<p>pg-I don’t disagree with your statement that the most benefit will come from getting underprivileged kids to Good State U, but at least in my state, (and my state has a better current budget than many states), a lot of kids with EFC=0 don’t get enough federal/state aid to make it feasible, esp. if they are not within commuting distance.</p>
<p>at least there’s someone who agrees with me that this isn’t about college admissions policies - its our assumption that we are or can be a meritocracy.</p>
<p>[The</a> Equality Of Opportunity Fallacy | The New Republic](<a href=“http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88968/the-equality-opportunity-fallacy]The”>The Equality Of Opportunity Fallacy | The New Republic)</p>
<p>what to do </p>
<p>A. dont cut pell grants</p>
<p>B. address inequality of incomes directly</p>
<p>“The truth is that many of the most capable low- and middle-income students attend community colleges or less selective four-year colleges close to their home. Doing so makes them less likely to graduate from college at all, research has shown. Incredibly, only 44 percent of low-income high school seniors with high standardized test scores enroll in a four-year college, according to a Century Foundation report compared with about 50 percent of high-income seniors who have average test scores.”</p>
<p>“Hey, it’s their money, and they can do with it what they please.”</p>
<p>Fine. Then why should they receive the numerous forms of public subsidy that they do, especially their tax benefits? They’re basically private businesses.</p>
<p>I am quite uncomfortable with some of Mr. Marx’s main ideas. I agree that well-off kids have certain unfair advantages in the college admissions process, but that’s not the only reason that kids from wealthy backgrounds tend to have far greater representation in top colleges than the rest of the socioeconomic spectrum. Wealthy families are far more likely to have highly intelligent and motivated parents, who in turn are far more likely to raise highly intelligent and motivated students. </p>
<p>This by no means indicates that middle- to lower-income students are, by definition, less intelligent and capable. My own parents and many of my friends stand as proof otherwise. But presence of a child with the intelligence and motivation to be qualified for a top college is more uncommon in the lower 95 percent of the socioeconomic distribution than it is in the highest 5%. There’s good reasons to take steps to more accurately evaluate applicants’ merit, but it would be wrong for us to expect that the distribution of the number of students across the income spectrum in top colleges will be anything close to even, or even anywhere approximating the distribution of income itself. </p>
<p>I also am concerned by Mr. Marx’s rather, well, quasi-Marxist tones (I’ve done brief study of Karl Marx, and I know that the other Mr. Marx’s ideas are not truly Marxist in nature, but the play on words was just too tempting). Minimising the waste of human capital is a compelling national interest, but I think that our society ought tread very carefully on the grounds of government shaping colleges’ admissions policies. The reason we have such a diversity of colleges in this country is because colleges have substantial freedom to shape themselves as they please. I think that maintaining academia as a apolitical as is feasible and allowing educational institutions to fashion themselves as they please are compelling goals of education policy, and they oblige us to be very cautious in considering government-based modifications to the way academia functions. This does not mean that such actions are not sometimes justified and appropriate, but I question whether Mr. Marx’s ideas observe the principles of caution which I think are important here.</p>
<p>More than four years ago, at the time when my daughter was accepted ED at an out-of-state top-20 university, I happened to be in the hospital after having surgery for a broken leg.</p>
<p>My daughter called to tell me about her acceptance, and I shared the news with my roommate – a woman about 10 years older than me who had once attended the same high school my daughter was attending. She had dropped out of that high school, though, as soon as she was eligible to do so because her parents needed her to contribute to the family income.</p>
<p>When I told this woman the news, she was puzzled. She did not understand why anyone would want to go far away for college – or even to live on campus. She also had never heard of the university my daughter was going to attend, even though it has a national reputation. </p>
<p>As we talked, I discovered that no one in my roommate’s family had ever attended any college other than a community college, and even those who went to community colleges usually only took a few job-related courses, rather than aspiring to associate’s degrees. About half of the people in this family were high school dropouts, including some of the young adults, and nobody thought there was anything wrong with that. My roommate told me that she had one grandson who was very unusual – an outstanding student in high school who aspired to attend the flagship state university. But not everyone in the family approved of this ambition, and if he did attend, he would go as a commuter.</p>
<p>The cultural differences linked to social class can be profound.</p>
<p>^ Great story and quite typical of the ‘real’ world of ‘real’ people. Which is why the focus on top colleges is misplaced. The top colleges are not a destination that is sought out by most smart kids (or their families) from such backgrounds. The state flagships are about as far as most of these kids want to go.</p>
<p>If we want to really improve educational opportunities for the smart kids from low-income and lesser-educated families, then we need to strongly support and promote publicly funded programs that provide financial aid to deserving students who want to attend good public universities. Better yet, we need to make sure that tuition at these colleges doesn’t keep going up.</p>
<p>The problem with some of the above conclusions is that we create a hereditary aristocracy, something I would not like to see.</p>
<p>If see say that wealthy families with educations produce intelligent children who deserve spots in great institutions and working class families and immigrants do not, then we are creating a de facto caste structure.</p>
<p>That’s not the kind of society I would endorse.</p>
<p>I teach at the community college. I have had many brilliant students. Some go on to great four year schools, some do not.</p>
<p>It does seem to me that it is the job of guidance counselors and high school teachers to make kids aware of the possibilities for them in the world. And then, yes, I do like Anthony Marx’s ideas about trying to create a more egalitarian society, albeit on a small scale.</p>
<p>My dad was the son of immigrants and he scored so high on his induction IQ test that he was immediately made an officer. He had already been to city college and graduated even though he was only 15 because he couldn’t get working papers to work full time at 15. He graduated so early because he was skipped three times, common in those days for really capable students. </p>
<p>City college was free; he did have to earn money as a newsrunner to contribute to the family coffers, but he did graduate.</p>
<p>In some of the above scenarios he would have been written off.</p>
<p>He had awful manners and little exposure to the world. He worse shoes with cardboard soles when the leather soles wore out.</p>
<p>After he served in England during WWII he spoke better, developed wonderful manners, insisted his kids do the same. He lost all traces of his “cockney” (in his case Lower East Side) accent. He insisted his kids have very good manners.</p>
<p>His much younger brother had even more opportunities and became one of the leading lawyers in NY in the space of one generation.</p>
<p>I have seen videos of Malva Collins’ work in Chicago with incredible young minority children learning Shakespeare at 10, reciting and interpreting the words. </p>
<p>I have met wealthy friends of my kids who’ve never read a novel more challenging than young adult fiction go to Ivies.</p>
<p>I think we are making some unfortunate assumptions here.</p>
<p>And if we stop educating “the underclass” the gap will only widen. Many of the students see received such weak educations in high school that community college is really the first time they are learning anything. I can’t say how important I think it is that they continue and get first class four year college educations. It’s important to preserve a free society and have an educated populace that is capable of informed voting.</p>
<p>Otherwise, let’s just return to aristocracy and monarchy and/or autocracy.</p>
<p>::mythmom gets off her soapbox and apologizes to all assembled.::</p>
<p>I would support raising the pell grant up to an amount which would actually fund a college eduation, personally, and investing in our youth. That’s just me.</p>
<p>The main population who benefits from attendance at an “elite” university is first generation attendee, or the impoverished. I don’t want to say URM simply because I know too many highly educated people of color to really believe that is the single biggest issue. But, the main thing, now, is to get those who are impoverished an education.</p>
<p>And, of course kids from upper middle class backgrounds look better on paper. Their parents can pay for EC’s and tutors; there is access to healthy food, a reasonable bedtime, privacy, space, people in the house whose genuine biggest concern that night at dinner is how the kids’ day went and what their homework is that night. They have parents who can proof read a paper, or fill in the gaps in teaching ability when there’s a clumsy chem or calc teacher. But, the biggest thing that most people don’t understand is that when you don’t know what you are going to EAT that night, or even IF, it is very difficult to focus, either as a parent or a child, on when Winston Churchill made his famous speeches. </p>
<p>We need to take our money out of the guns and bombs and helicopters and put it into educating the kids in our own back yard. JMO</p>
<p>A poor white or ORM has the double whammy of costing the college money, as well as not adding anything to the diversity score that universities like to brag about.</p>
<p>True, Dad<em>of</em>3. I have the feeling that a number of schools were appalled to discover that in admitting my S–a kid with Presidential Scholar-levels SATs from a well-to-do town–they had admitted a white boy with an EFC of just about 0. So they promptly gapped him, using their “institutional methodology” as an excuse. The two schools that actually met his need were Dartmouth and Pomona.</p>
<p>oh please. as if poor (“EFC of just about 0”) black and brown kids never get gapped. that’s a really silly assertion, not to mention ignorant.</p>
<p>someone above suggested dumping the SAT. To me the SAT is the closest thing to objective that there is…</p>
<p>And how come the smartest kids at my daughter’s high school magically get the highest SAT scores, uhhh maybe because they are smartest kids</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More like it and other standardized tests exist to compare students across different high schools where course rigor and grading difficulty can vary wildly.</p>
<p>However, it can be coached and gamed – see the recent thread on New Oriental Education, an SAT preparation school in China. SAT preparation schools in the US may not have as extreme effects in improving SAT scores, but they do have some effect, and such schools are more available and accessible as one goes up the family income and wealth scale.</p>
<p>So while there is need for something to help compare students across different high schools, the SAT’s usefulness in this respect is clouded by its coachability and the existence of effective SAT preparation schools.</p>
<p>"I think we are making some unfortunate assumptions here.</p>
<p>And if we stop educating “the underclass” the gap will only widen."</p>
<p>mythmom,what assumptions are you referring to? Has anyone said the “underclass” shouldn’t be educated? I don’t recall seeing anything about anybody “deserving” anything. I think the concern is that the “middle class” can’t pay for elite schools. I don’t think that’s the same thing.</p>
<p>Also, in your examples, were there elite schools involved? Our dads had the same story, except my dad was black and born in Alabama in 1913. He and mom met at West Virginia State. </p>
<p>They did alright.</p>
<p>My not-rich, non-URM son will be attending Yale in the fall because of [url=<a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/index.html]QuestBridge”>http://www.questbridge.org/index.html]QuestBridge</a> Home Page<a href=“and%20Amherst%20is%20a%20partner%20school”>/url</a>.</p>
<p>R. Nixon couldn’t afford the trip from his home to Harvard and went to Duke, since Duke provided financial assistance for the travel. Granted, that was a long time ago. If a kid is good and motivated, he/she will be successful regardless of the school he/she goes to.</p>
<p>PS, we can argue about whether Nixon is a good example of success. That is a different topic for another thread.</p>
<p>ucb: what’s wrong with ambitious kids/families preparing for the SAT? isn’t that part of being smart!</p>
<p>or are you arguing for some berkeley liberal make the world fair approach to college admissions/life? having resources and getting coaching is a good thing for humanity, not a bad thing.</p>
<p>I was referring to the post that discussed that fact that it was more likely that children of wealthy parents were more intelligent and motivated and therefore more deserving.</p>
<p>No, my dad went to City College, CCNY, as I said.</p>
<p>My point in that example was that his manners and speech made him look “undeserving” in terms of one post. </p>
<p>Kids who look “undeserving” can clean up real good, like my dad did.</p>
<p>And lest you think this is a paper tiger, one of my students, a young minority, single mother, was valedictorian at our CC one year. In her speech she mentioned me as an inspiration (one of the greatest honors I’ve ever received) and went off to NYU. People said, “well at least one time our ADC money (Aid to dependent children as I’m sure you know) paid off” implying other recipients were undeserving. I asked about the super rich who get their perks by al their tax loop holes. No one seems bothered if they spend their time partying.</p>
<p>I think there is a huge resentmen toward and underestimation of the poor in our country.</p>
<p>When people are knocking Anthony Marx they are not just worrying about the middle class getting its due.</p>
<p>As for that, there are options for the middle class like state u. In many states the flagship is an elite institution and even when it isn’t, it can often provide an elite education. That was my experience at Stony Brook. My education beats out many of my colleagues from our English Department, and that includes Princeton and Brown and Yale.</p>
<p>For my students, attending Stony Brook seems prohibitive. CC is cheaper and closer.</p>
<p>And every Anthony Marx (I don’t think there are that many, by the way) there is a Morty Shapiro at Williams still focused on getting middle and upper middle class kids into his/her school.</p>
<p>On a personal note, Morty Shapiro is more my guy because my S, an upper middle class kid, who nevertheless through a complicated set of circumstances needed FA, was wait listed at Amherst but accepted at Williams. In fact, I have to agree with mini that need blind is hogwash because the acceptances pretty much paralleled the financial fortunes of the school. Like Consolation’s kid he added nothing to institutional stats. (Of course in her example, her kid was gapped. Maybe a more attractive candidate.)</p>
<p>With my political glasses on, I can route for Anthony Marx and hope my son never sees this. Like every true Eph, he hates Amherst. (LOL.)</p>
<p>I have also worked as a social worker (as well as a college professor) was was astounded at the resentment and misinformation society carries around about the poor.</p>
<p>Makes me want to paraphrase the famous Fitzgerald/Hemingway conversation.</p>
<p>Fitzgerald: The poor are different from you and me.</p>
<p>Hemingway: Yeah, they have less money.</p>