<p>Yea I guess if people can afford it they should be allowed to spend it on whatever they wish, but there is something very disturbing about this trend where parents hire "college admission advisors" (IvyWise for example) who "help" the students get to the college of their choice. Is this what college admission and education supposed to be? Sure, the kids who do hire these services have the grades, violin lessons etc. but what about the kids who can't afford these services? Should they be short changed because they are not as financially well-off to afford the "help"? I guess this also extends to the expensive "test prep" courses.</p>
<p>It's just as much of a gamble. People who use IvyWise are spending a lot of money for something that isn't guaranteed so I don't see how the probability of being accepted after hiring IvyWise is any greater than a normal applicant.</p>
<p>And when you think about it...parents who hire IvyWise have probably been prepping their children for the Ivies since birth. The kid probably already went to the best private school and had every opportunity handed to him.</p>
<p>Of course, this is just speculation on my part. ...just thought i'd add.</p>
<p>Although just from the title, I saw this as a "liberal" posting on a nonissue, as in "The world is so unfair and screwed up, lets just point out how wrong it is so we can do absolutely nothing about it and not even try to understand why it's like that" lol, however the larger issue that this touches upon bothers me. </p>
<p>What I don't want happening here, is like in France or England, all the children of kids that go off to elilte schools also end up going to elite schools. In the States, it's traditionally not been as severe, but rather than focusing upon "college advisors," this touches upon the whole thing of does money influence the next generation of children?</p>
<p>Do richer kids do better on the SAT because it's coachable? Or because their high school education was a lot better? Or is it because since the parents are rich (and prolly smart), the kids will have a better shot at being rich (and being smart) -- although this aspect is politically uncorrect. (My take is that it's a combination of all 3). </p>
<p>As long as poor kids have a shot, given that (1) they have the interest (2) they have the talent, and (3) they have very good routes to go to school(financial aid, loans, sat books, publicly funded tutors), it shouldn't matter. If you're talking about banning "advisors" or "SAT tutors," then you're "discriminating against the rich." You need a solution that doesn't discriminate against anyone. </p>
<p>Also, heres an anecodote: my friend had one of these advisors since like 6th grade. He was actually a college counselor or something. He also had SAT tutors since 6th grade (couldn't even break 1500) and went to a very expensive prep school (where he got kicked out after his junior year). He then went to a community college, got into UCLA (got his admission rescinded cause he got a D in calc), and ended up going to UCSD from where he's about to graduate.</p>
<p>Your friends story proves nothing. And obviously, some people from poor families become very, very successful. The point is to look at the general population. And a much higher % of people from rich families are successful than people from poor families, and that IS unfair. But hell, our civilization holds to all kinds of ideals it doesn't practice. For instance, we're not a true democracy, and party politics means that voters may end up voting on a few major issues and their will on more minor issues will not be represented at all in who they wind up electing. I'm very disappointed in your condescension that "liberal" posts aim to complain and not understand why and not do anything. The world is not perfect, but it could always be better, and I see no reason why we shouldn't try. Reform, reform is the answer. If public educations were uniformly better -hell, if poor public schools had quality college counselors, that would make a huge difference.</p>
<p>His story is saying that just because you're wealthy and have every opportunity in the world, it doesn't mean you'll be granted the right to attend a top 10 school. And when you say that much higher percentage of people from rich families become successful versus those from poor families , its doesn't account for the fact that not every poor family raises their child to be successful in life. There are a lot of poor families who don't teach their kids to value an education and to work hard for what you want in life. But I do believe that there are poor families who do raise their kids to cherish the above mentioned who do become successful. So while, looking at that statistic, it may seem unfair...it doesn't represent exactly WHY rich families are successful and some poor ones are not.</p>
<p>Yah man I mean total sell outs!~</p>
<p>At least some one got what I said. Well said, btw. :) </p>
<p>Unless someone misunderstands me again, I am not referring to the OP's topic as a "non-issue," I was saying mainly what image I got from the title of this thread. And which, ecape justified.</p>
<p>
This says absolutely nothing. What are the reasons why these people from poor families produce less richer people? </p>
<p>What is an issue is, let's say, if a large number of poor families had to ask their children not to go to school to help support the family (and there was no avenue of "assistance" although there is and lots of it. FAFSA, anyone? How many times were you asked, "are you the first generation to attend college?")</p>
<p>Here's my thought:
*1. Social mobility is good.
2. Wealth inequality for its own sake is not evil. *</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but are you saying we're not a true democracy because we don't have a direct democracy? We are, arguably, the most democratic of institutions --even at the party level. We elect our nominees, we elect state, local, and national leaders. Hell, some of the city level elections are even non-partisan. We have so many elections in fact that an "enlightened constituency" usually looks towards the party platform to help them make the decision that they would probably agree to. And btw, direct democracy has been thoroughly discredited as a travesty. See California. </p>
<p>Btw, in what civilization exactly does party politics not exist? You're thinking of a utopia where all enlightened people "agree" on one way of thought. Or perhaps, China, or the now defunct Union of Socialist Soviet Republics? Even then, they had "factions" or parties within a single party.</p>
<p>I took a class on social inequity, and how it is a social construction, so excuse my liberal perspective. The truth is that inequity lies because of the unequal distribution of wealth, which in turn affects schools because they are built and run on the tax dollars of the property they're on--thereby, those in a rich neighborhood become state of the art high schools comparable to college while those in poor neighborhoods are comparable to a third world country classroom. So, I think the problem is with the schooling system, which lies on the foundation of wealth. If we all had the same "starting point," then I don't think Ivy advisers or test prep would make a difference.</p>
<p>I actually read about an experiment where different people from economic backgrounds (both rich and poor) were given the same amount of money...and they were allowed to do what they wanted with the money. What happened was after a certain amount of time had passed and they recalculated how much money each person had, the originally rich people had more money....and the poor people were still poor despite the fact that they started off at the same point. Ultimately, I think that despite how equal we all are....you're going to have rich people and poor people. no matter what.</p>
<p>I think that experiment proves my point. Rich kids have many "headstarts" in life such as a ready made network of political, economic, and social connections, so of course they're going to know how to invest their money. Without reading the entire experiment it is difficult to comment, but I think the experiment does show that the rich ensure their progeny's successful futures by instituting back-ups and safety nets at every point.</p>
<p>I don't think there are "headstarts" or even luck when it comes to economic equality. My point with the experiment was to show that there is a certain mindset between the rich and the poor. It's not a headstart when a "poor" person could have just as equally invested the same money that was also given to the "rich" person.</p>
<p>btw..i appreciate how smoothly this discussion is going. in some threads, there would be a bloodbath by now. ;)</p>
<p>When your biggest concern for most of your life is putting food on the table and clothing your family, the last thing people will think of is investing. I know my parents would never invest because they have been on survival mode for too long. :(</p>
<p>They are fine now but the mentality will always be there.</p>
<p>It boils down to two concepts of equality.</p>
<p>Equality of results.
and
Equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>Leftist policy has been and always will be, policy that aims to create the former. And conservative policy, despite what the media and your lefty professors throw at you everyday is policy aimed at creating equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>Head start? I would consider affirmative action to be a head start. I would consider a political climate which stigmatizes any, even, rational criticism of a minority a head start. Success is not measured by what you bring to the table but rather what you do with what you bring.</p>
<p>For every rich white person you can show me who you believe to have had a head start I can show you a poor minority who had no head start and made a success of him/herself.</p>
<p>Why is the NBA dominated with black people..is it because they are genetically predisposed to be good at sports? NOPE. It is because from an early age they are taught basketball, it is built into their culture. This is an issue of nurture rather than nature. The problem lies with the culture, where it is acceptable to not seek success, or to have a mindset that it is impossible to become successful because the white man (and I say this not in a racial way but rather a way that it has been and is still commonly looked at by the poverty stricken minorities of this country.)</p>
<p>Remember the movie stand and deliver..when Mr.Espinosa in the movie said they key to the students success was "ganes(sp)" or in English desire? Minorities are stuck into believing that a desire for success is pointless, that they have their place in society. Who is it that gives them this mindset? Its leftists!! Its the people that say,oh here you need Affirmative Action because otherwise you just cant do it, or here is a plum job or two, we need a token ____ or how about this..when minorities like oh I dunno, Condelezza Rice, Alverto Gonzales, Colin Powell, Elaine Chao, Alphonso Jackson etc.. are appointed by this republican president, it some how "DOESN'T COUNT" because of their political ideology, its as if Condi is not black because she is a conservative! HA!</p>
<p>ijflexi: I wasn't really focusing on politics because that's just to complicated, but in which conservative policy do you really see them trying to create "equality of opportunity?" The epitome of conservativeness is the current Bush administration and all this bureaucracy seems to be doing is cutting federal aid programs such as work study, and even trying to overturn affirmative action. </p>
<p>By the way, those basketball players and success stories you mention of minorities are exactly that: in the minority--they're not the story of every URM. Most of them unfortunately are going to end up working some dead-end McJob because they didn't have the equality of opportunity. They were in neighborhoods that were marred by gangs, and schools taught by teachers that are not qualified enough. I can't say that you and I would be very motivated to study when the heating system is run by coal, the roof is leaking, one has to walk to the gym to go to a bathroom, and when the encyclopedias are so old they don't even have Neil Armstrong landing on the moon in 1969. </p>
<p>I know you say you can show me for every white person with a head start a minority who has made it big, but you're using your personal mental model instead of reality. You don't usually see minorities working the high-end jobs that would produce equality of results and opportunity for their children because whites are usually the ones working it. A lot of people say that racism and prejudice is non-existent, but that's just BS, and everyone knows it! That's why we have to have affirmative action--not because of any mindset, but because of the truth. How are they suppose to become the next great physicist if they don't strong AP teachers teaching them, and how are they supposed to get the right job when they're constantly underemployed because of their race. </p>
<p>Also, life is NOT A MOVIE--it sucks much more than that, and there are usually not that many happy endings-just turn on the news.</p>
<p>The epitome of conservativeness is not the current administration. Pickup a copy of National Review, or The American Spectator, the American Conservative, the Wall Street journal etc All CONSERVATIVE publications, that publish CONSERVATIVE pundits and authors...the criticism of the current administration is abundant! As a matter of ideology this administration is certainly not fiscally conservative, and a lot of the social programs it has enacted have been socially liberal. So please if you are going to speak about political ideology at least be in the vicinity of the truth.</p>
<p>You speak of neighborhoods that are "marred by gangs, schools taught by under-qualified teachers." Who is responsible for that? Is it conservatives? Or is it the liberal city and county level politicians who make policy decisions in those areas? You first of all cannot blame the federal government, they are so detached from the situation as it is. Secondly, when someone on the federal level such as President Bush, has attempted to enact reforms and new policies to help the "inner city" problem, they are tied up in debate by the liberals in congress. Take faith based initiatives for example, a good will gesture to allow private faith based organizations tax allowances so that they may focus their resources more on helping their respective community, this is something adamantly opposed by the majority of liberals. Thank goodness for the power of executive order, our president was able to enact some fbi's.</p>
<p>"I can't say that you and I would be very motivated to study when the heating system is run by coal, the roof is leaking, one has to walk to the gym to go to a bathroom, and when the encyclopedias are so old they don't even have Neil Armstrong landing on the moon in 1969."</p>
<p>First of all if I had to rely on coal heating, that would force me to study HARDER! So that I may get a good job and move the hell out of where ever I was that was so awful, and because I have a moral sense of community and culture, after landing that great job and bettering myself, I would engage in philanthropic efforts to improve the condition for my previous community.</p>
<p>What you speak of is apathy and despair, and lack of desire. When the tough gets going the going get tough! So you got a roof leak, and no running water, is the government supposed to help you out, why cant you help yourself out? You just proved my point, your basically saying in this hypothetical situation conditions are so bad they DO NOT ALLOW you to try and achieve anything..so what will you do? Sit there and **** and moan about your leaky roof and your old encyclopedia?</p>
<p>Your right life is NOT A MOVIE..the reason we have movies like Stand and Deliver is to give HOPE. Something that conservatives bank on. Back to your analogy of the leaky roof and bad heater etc.. Thats just the plain ole wrong attitude...that because of these obstacles you cannot over come! It's easier to b*tch about it and pretend like its someone else's responsibility and not your own.</p>
<p>Ultimately, their future lies in their hands, and no amount of assistance can force a person to achieve success unless they themselves genuinely seek it. And to constantly be told by your family, by your local leaders that you cannot achieve, that you need help BEFORE you are able to achieve is tantamount to brainwashing a person into a psyche of believing they cannot achieve.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm going to reply to this in a way that brings it back to the OP's thought.</p>
<p>Liberalism (in this context I mean this in a broad way to describe all American political thought, as the American constitution and way of thought is the embodiment of Lockean(sp?) ideals, in that human beings have the individual ability to overcome such obstacles. Do you agree that most rich people in this country worked very hard and so deserve to be rich? </p>
<p>We should not advocate "equality of results" which is simply everybody earns the same (how dreary does this sound?). We should not even strive for "equality of opportunity," if that warrants those with "more opportunities" not to not be able to use those extra opportunities. **What we should strive for is that everybody in this country, should, given that they have the talent and desire to succeed, have an environment that doesn't obstruct and even at times helps them <a href="yes,%20this%20is%20a%20liberal%20thought">/b</a>. The government should hand out loans and grant money to those that can't afford it (a form of wealth redistribution btw). However, I strongly am against affirmative action based on race and sex.</p>
<p>Again, my point is that Social Mobility is good. There should be no minority groups in at least California that could justifiably complain that they lack the opportunity to succeed. There's just way too much aid (wealth redistribution) that points to something else (probably the values of black Americans as a whole) that points to their lack of success.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"We should not even strive for "equality of opportunity," if that warrants those with "more opportunities" not to not be able to use those extra opportunities."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not think that is what it would entail, but rather the pursuance of a policy that would assist those with less opportunity into a position of more opportunity. </p>
<p>You cannot look at opportunity as a tangible item, to give more to someone is not to take away from someone else.</p>
<p>
I do not think that is what it would entail, but rather the pursuance of a policy that would assist those with less opportunity into a position of more opportunity.
Funny thing is I think your point and my point converge, but you fail to acknowledge it because of labels and you picked out one small point in my post that "sounds harsh," but conceptually makes sense and which you yourself acknowledge. </p>
<p>
You cannot look at opportunity as a tangible item, to give more to someone is not to take away from someone else.
</p>
<p>Really? Tell that to the white and asian kids that don't get into a certain school because of affirmative action when their academic performance is the same or even greater (affirmative action has been banned but discrimination, lol, no i meant preferences based on socioeconomic backgrounds -- which highly correlates with race -- hasn't in public schools, affirmative action does exist in ivy league and other private universities)</p>
<p>Oh and one more thing. Financial aid is the redistribution of opportunity (if you really do equate wealth with opportunity).</p>
<p>Other examples would be banning private tutoring or quotas from each regional, education, racial, and gender bracket (quotas i believe do exist in here; however, bans on private tutoring have ocurred in countries with extremely socialist views, i.e. japan, south korea).</p>
<p>Your argument is faulty, and my wording is incorrect. </p>
<p>It is true that in some cases to give someone more opportunity is to take that opportunity away from someone else, which you have adequately explempified. But that is not ALWAYS the case. That is not the rule de jure nor de facto. </p>
<p>For example, to take government money and use it to start an afterschool high school college prepatory class for interested innercity highschool pupils, would be a creation of opportunity, no? Who loses an opportunity in this scenario? Does the tax money lose an opportunity to be spent elsewhere, of course but that is so rudimentry of the workings of government that it need not even be discussed! So I ask you again in that scenario who loses? What asian or white kid misses out on something? (And please do not get me wrong I am a neoconservative jewish 24yr old spoiled Orange County living, liberal despiser.)</p>
<p>I believe that me and you do see eye to eye but perhaps our focus is differentiated.</p>
<p>black people being raised on bball. i dnot know about that. from my 10 years of experience in league/street basketball. i've noticed that black people are naturally better OVERALL. of course not all black people got game, but theres just something about them bc i've seen SOOO MANY MORE clumsy white boys/girls, than i have black boys/girls on the basketball court. plus black people are just more athletic from my experience. they're generally stronger physically too. (again, my obversations)</p>