The poor neglected gifted child

Posted by: Bostonian

The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 05:17 AM

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/03...ZyFM/story.html
The poor neglected gifted child
By Amy Crawford
Boston Globe
MARCH 16, 2014

...

GIVEN ALL THE PRESSURES our education system faces, it seems almost indecent to worry about the travails of a small minority of very smart children. Understandably, federal and state education policy has long focused on more obvious problems that education can help address—problems such as the yawning gaps between the test scores of rich and poor students and between different racial groups. Tax dollars disproportionately go to help kids with learning disabilities and other disadvantages, because society generally agrees that they are most in need of help.

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which penalizes public schools that don’t bring the lowest-performing students up to grade level. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulates special education and provides schools with more than $11 billion annually. A provision of federal education law called Title I allocates some $14 billion to schools that have a higher proportion of students from low-income families, to pay for programs designed to keep them from falling behind.

The smartest kid in class, by contrast, is not an expensive problem. A boy or girl who finishes an assignment early can be handed a book and told to read quietly while the teacher works on getting other children caught up. What would clearly be neglect if it happened to a special-needs child tends to look different if the child is gifted: Being left alone might even feel like a reward, an acknowledgment of being a fast learner.

Not surprisingly, programs oriented toward gifted children get barely any federal funding. The Javits Act, the only federal law aimed at gifted students, pays for research and pilot education programs and is currently funded at $5 million, down from a peak of $11 million several years ago.

...
Posted by: luvedu

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 06:06 AM


Thank you for the lovely Article and the cartoon is hilarious!

Yes in this country it is a crime to be rich and a punishment to be intelligent !
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 06:50 AM

Thank you for sharing this thought provoking article.

Trying to digest this thought: "Lubinski’s unusually successful cohort was also a lucky group from the start—they participated in the study in the first place because their parents or teachers encouraged them to take the SAT at age 12. Previous research into gifted children has shown that many, or even most of them, aren’t so lucky: They aren’t identified early, and they don’t necessarily get special attention from their schools."

Familiar with children who took out-of-level academic talent search tests, specifically to help encourage teachers/schools/districts to provide appropriate curriculum and pacing... these kiddos, from a broad range of SES, at 12 years old had spent a range of 5-7 years in the public and/or private school systems... years which were largely characterized by benign neglect and no special attention from schools, whether "identified" or not. Some may even go so far as to say that children were "identified" to determine who not to teach. sick

There may be great danger in presuming that a child having taken the SAT at age 12 (or any other out-of-level academic talent search test at any age) is an earmark of the child having been the beneficiary of support, challenge, special attention, or appropriate curriculum placement/pacing from their school.

More from the article: "Politically, it raises the fraught question of whether our education system should be in the business of identifying and segregating elite students—an idea that has been tried and rejected before, for good reasons."More from real life: Kiddos may have long been identified and segregated, not for appropriate curriculum and pacing (as the article seems to imply) but rather "identified" and segregated to be recipients of benign neglect in the classroom. Several forum posts discuss gifted children receiving no instruction. sick

The article referring to students with a rare and extremely high intellectual profile as "elite" students may seem to imply wealth or high SES amongst these students, as the definition of "elite" is somewhat ambiguous as to indicating a high amount of talent, power, or wealth.
Posted by: ultramarina

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 07:37 AM

I thought this was a good article on a topic that rarely receives any coverage that looks anything close to balanced. Of course I support helping gifted children, but educational justice is also very important to me.
Posted by: DeeDee

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 07:54 AM

"talent war." Ugh.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:05 AM

Quote:
Of course I support helping gifted children, but educational justice is also very important to me.
In seeming to balance these statements as being opposed to one another by use of the fulcrum word "but"... how do you define educational justice in this context if it is other than helping gifted children by providing opportunity to meet the educational needs of students requiring the support/challenge of advanced academic placement and pacing due to their readiness and ability to learn at that level?

I support helping gifted children because educational justice is very important to me.
Posted by: La Texican

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:13 AM

Originally Posted By: article
Other education researchers propose gearing the entire curriculum toward the highest-achieving students, with extra time outside of class for their less-talented peers to catch up. It’s an idea that Adam Gamoran, president of the youth-focused William T. Grant Foundation and a former University of Wisconsin sociologist, says could address the issue of inequality without holding back high achievers.

Ooh, I like this idea, so very much. It's just so reasonable.
Posted by: Zen Scanner

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:31 AM

Justice seems complicated because you can look at intent or outcomes or opportunities or resources or?.

If only one student learns at twice the pace, should twice as much course material be purchased for just them?

What if there are two students moving at twice the pace, one has tutors and works three hours a day at home on their education, the other only does school work at school. Should they get the same school resources?

24 students in a classroom, 18 moving at the same pace and can receive the same instruction, three moving faster and three moving slower need additional instruction to support where they are at. If the teacher has time each week for 24 hours of instruction for the classroom, should 18 of those go to the middle level, 3 to fast, and 3 to slow? Or should it be 8 hours to each group.

It's a pretty muddled sort of moral/ethical mix that can leave me feeling a bit uncertain about just where the line of "fair" exists.
Posted by: Sweetie

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:34 AM

I think fair starts with dropping strictly age based groupings.
Posted by: ultramarina

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:45 AM

Indigo, I'm specifically concerned with this:

Quote:
Lucas warns that any such effort will be gamed by more well-to-do parents, angling to get their children in, then fighting to ensure the gifted group gets better teachers, newer technology, and other advantages. Great care would be required, he says, so as not to “end up with another system for those at the top to reinforce that they belong there.”


and this:

Quote:
Those who were groomed to be followers, he notes, consistently wound up with worse teachers, scarcer supplies, and a weaker curriculum than their more advanced peers.


Unintended consequences, of course. But very real phenoms in my experience--and those they hurt are those who can least afford it. Of course, this doesn't mean we should throw the gifted under the bus. But it's very complicated. My DD's school contains a GT magnet housed in a Title 1 school and yes, there are issues.
Posted by: Zen Scanner

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Sweetie
I think fair starts with dropping strictly age based groupings.


I like that. Fair does always seem questionable when "-isms" are in play, as in ageism here.
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:48 AM

Yup-- it's how colleges and universities have tended to approach the same problem for centuries, of course.

Each unto his own abilities and all that-- but don't make everything revolve around "achievable" for the median.



Quote:

it seems almost indecent to worry about the travails of a small minority of very smart children. Understandably, federal and state education policy has long focused on more obvious problems that education can help address—problems such as the yawning gaps between the test scores of rich and poor students and between different racial groups. Tax dollars disproportionately go to help kids with learning disabilities and other disadvantages, because society generally agrees that they are most in need of help.


I have to say, this simply DOES NOT make sense to me.

Our society needs people who are capable of performing at "elite" levels intellectually as adults. It just does. Where the heck are they going to come from if we've elected to hobble them with mediocrity during their academically formative years, then?

From a societal perspective, it makes FAR more sense to me to be a little mercenary about where those tax $$ are going, and for which purposes. While it may not be a popular (or at least... PC ) statement, if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.

It's not that I'm against providing services at the level at which children are prepared to work-- because that is ultimately exactly what I'd like. It just seems to me that if "gifted" is a status thing with parents, maybe someone ought to point out to them that, conversely, should the parents of kids with profound intellectual disabilities then experience.... shame?? Because that is the logical extension there.

Make it all special ed outside of the central 2.5 sigma range, and maybe the status goes away. I don't know about the rest of you, but I really don't MIND if my daughter is in the "special education" population-- if her needs are being served academically, I'd ditch the GT label in a heartbeat.

IEP's make so much sense to me. Do it for both sides of the distribution. smile
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:49 AM

Thank you, UM, for sharing the part of the article which you were responding to. I agree wholeheartedly.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 08:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Zen Scanner
Originally Posted By: Sweetie
I think fair starts with dropping strictly age based groupings.


I like that. Fair does always seem questionable when "-isms" are in play, as in ageism here.


Agreed! smile
Posted by: ultramarina

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:00 AM

Quote:
if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.


But if you're illiterate and/or don't graduate from HS, you're much more likely to struggle in myriad ways and to require costly support from the state, including AFDC, etc and, unfortunately, possibly jail time, which is very, VERY expensive. Investing in helping kids who are struggling in school actually makes tons of economic sense in ways that are probably a lot more easily quantifiable than investing in the gifted.
Posted by: La Texican

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:06 AM

HK, I think the phrase "willing to work" sums up my feelings. If the schools could reinforce the concept of being willing to work, reward doing your work, penalize or neglect students for not doing their work, whatever your ability is, it would teach the most important lesson a school should teach. That lesson could truly be differentiated and reach every student at their level. Instead (ime) they let smart students get away with not doing their work because "they're fine, they're smart" and they try to convince poor students to "try" harder to do their work. The school is the authority. They should make it clear that they expect children to do their work, support and teach, but set the standard that they expect ALL kids to do their work. Studiously doing your work should be the main take-away from spending your time going to school. Everything else, imo, is optional. Learning to work on learning should be the whole purpose of school. jmo, or what is school for?
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:06 AM



Originally Posted By: ultramarina
Quote:
if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.


But if you're illiterate and/or don't graduate from HS, you're much more likely to struggle in myriad ways and to require costly support from the state, including AFDC, etc and, unfortunately, possibly jail time, which is very, VERY expensive. Investing in helping kids who are struggling in school actually makes tons of economic sense in ways that are probably a lot more easily quantifiable than investing in the gifted.


True. But just because something is EASY to quantify doesn't mean that the more difficult calculation is automatically less important.

It's also true that (IMO) we're trying to get everyone to meet a benchmark that a fair number of those people probably CANNOT meet. The reasons are myriad, of course-- but some of those problems are mutable and some of them aren't. Until we start (as a society) teasing apart which problems can be fixed in that cohort, it seems an awful lot like throwing good money after bad.

I wish that I didn't feel so cynical about that. I really do.

frown
Posted by: knute974

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:11 AM

@HK The use of the word "indecent" in the section you quoted really struck a negative chord for me. How sad that it seems obscene to this author to suggest that society should provide an appropriate education to a kid with exceptional ability.
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:25 AM

Originally Posted By: ultramarina
Quote:
if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.


But if you're illiterate and/or don't graduate from HS, you're much more likely to struggle in myriad ways and to require costly support from the state, including AFDC, etc and, unfortunately, possibly jail time, which is very, VERY expensive. Investing in helping kids who are struggling in school actually makes tons of economic sense in ways that are probably a lot more easily quantifiable than investing in the gifted.


I can see both points. Right now, this country invests next to nothing at the K-12 level for the education of its brightest students. And we invest hundreds of millions or billions into programs for "underserved" students. I agree completely that getting lower-performing students into good jobs is critical --- but the problem is a lot bigger than just education. Education is great, but what if you spend all that time in college and still end up serving lattes in Starbuck's because there aren't any jobs for you? This is reality for a lot of young people today, and they have student loans to pay off on their $10 plus glass-jar-tips. The loss of skilled and semi-skilled jobs in this country is a huge problem and no number of degrees in subjects like business, journalism, and liberal studies will change that.

IMO, the system is broken in almost every way (there are a very few bright spots), and things won't improve until we get serious as a nation about addressing this fact.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:28 AM

Originally Posted By: HowlerKarma
From a societal perspective, it makes FAR more sense to me to be a little mercenary about where those tax $$ are going, and for which purposes. While it may not be a popular (or at least... PC ) statement, if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.


Both situations are social investment opportunities that can pay big dividends down the road. In the first situation, spending on that child to bring them up to a functional level means that child is likelier to grow up to be a functional adult, and self-sufficiency and contributing to society is always less costly than institutionalization.

I can make an argument that the "greatest generation" was also the overwhelmingly most invested-in generation (military experience, GI Bill, government-sponsored research, interstate system, Apollo program, etc.), which played a major role in making them so great.

So the better question is, why can't we come up with $20, and invest in both children?
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:31 AM

Originally Posted By: knute974
@HK The use of the word "indecent" in the section you quoted really struck a negative chord for me. How sad that it seems obscene to this author to suggest that society should provide an appropriate education to a kid with exceptional ability.
The word indecent also stood out to me in the context of the article. My initial thoughts, while piecemeal, were something along the lines of: this is attitudinal. The root of the problem is a viewpoint/attitude/perception passed along and seeming to grow stronger each time it is repeated.

To reverse this? If gifted kiddos (including those from families of modest financial means) are not given the message that it is "indecent" to provide curriculum at their challenge level... if they are not given the impression that they are destined to be followers... if they (and their parents) remain dedicated to acquiring knowledge rather than believing erroneously that knowledge/education/intellect is a scarce commodity to be rationed... possibly "the yawning gaps between the test scores of rich and poor students and between different racial groups" may decrease and intrapersonal/interpersonal healing will increase. Possibly it comes down to grouping by readiness and ability, and providing the placement and pacing which support learning for each group.
Posted by: Bostonian

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Val
I agree completely that getting lower-performing students into good jobs is critical --- but the problem is a lot bigger than just education.

Good by whose standard? There are lots of jobs that need doing (babysitting, picking fruit, mining coal, packing meat, driving taxis and trucks, cleaning homes) that the smart parents in this newsgroup would not consider good. People are not entitled to good jobs and need to make themselves productive in whatever way they can.

Much of the low-skilled work cannot be priced too high, or it will disappear, with people mowing their own lawns, cleaning their own houses, and watching their own children.
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 09:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Dude
Originally Posted By: HowlerKarma
From a societal perspective, it makes FAR more sense to me to be a little mercenary about where those tax $$ are going, and for which purposes. While it may not be a popular (or at least... PC ) statement, if I have just $10 to spend, and I'm presented with two students, one of whom is working four grades BELOW cohort and cannot seem to learn to read.... and the other of whom is working four grades ABOVE cohort and is ready for advanced mathematics/etc... my impulse is to give that funding where it is an investment for society, not just a momentary way of making myself feel awesome and charitable.


Both situations are social investment opportunities that can pay big dividends down the road. In the first situation, spending on that child to bring them up to a functional level means that child is likelier to grow up to be a functional adult, and self-sufficiency and contributing to society is always less costly than institutionalization.

I can make an argument that the "greatest generation" was also the overwhelmingly most invested-in generation (military experience, GI Bill, government-sponsored research, interstate system, Apollo program, etc.), which played a major role in making them so great.

So the better question is, why can't we come up with $20, and invest in both children?



We have-- but the focus has been on "neediest" rather than on "investment" there for so long that nobody even QUESTIONS throwing the entire $20 at the child who is 'struggling' to keep up.

I don't think that is going to change until we can (societally) admit that some people probably can't keep up with everyone else.

This is why I think that that first sentence really rankled with me. Clearly it resonated the same way with others; it's the notion that this is some kind of zero sum game to begin with, right??

Dude's point is well-taken there. As long as we see this as a 'zero sum game' in which ANY resources directed at students in the 99th percentile are "diverted" from "those poor children" at the 1st percentile, this isn't going to change. At some point we need to step back and ask which is the better investment in the long run-- and admit that even if it IS a zero-sum game, maybe we're not calculating the opportunity costs correctly.
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 10:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Bostonian
Originally Posted By: Val
I agree completely that getting lower-performing students into good jobs is critical --- but the problem is a lot bigger than just education.

Good by whose standard? ...

Much of the low-skilled work cannot be priced too high, or it will disappear, with people mowing their own lawns, cleaning their own houses, and watching their own children.


Everyone has a different idea about a good job. Some people think that earning $100 per hour to write dull technical manuals is a good job. I don't. Some people think being a physicist is a good job. Other people would want nothing to do with that. Some people think that working in construction is a good job. Some don't.

The point is that, in this country, choices are lacking where they weren't 30+ years ago. We've moved away from the ideas that 1) an adult employee working full-time deserves a living wage and 2) people do not have to go to college to get jobs that pay living wages.

People may argue that "everyone knows fast food, etc jobs don't pay living wages." But this isn't historically true. I worked in fast food as a teenager and there were adults there who earned living wages and got benefits. And they didn't all have college degrees. They earned more than us teenagers because they had been there longer and worked a full week. In other words, back then, the company saw them as being more valuable. Etc. I could give lots more examples, like the factories in a town where I lived.

These days, the cost of fast food isn't much more than it was 25 years ago (e.g. $0.50 for a burger in 1984 and $0.89 in 2007). But profits are up. Something had to give to make that happen, and it was employee pay. Yet people spin a story that it's the fault of the employees because they didn't go to college or work harder in high school or whatever. So we continue to push low achieving students into college instead of giving them other options.

One result of all this is that everything is cascading downward. We end up with student-loan-debt-yoked young people earning minimum wage and insane competition for "elite" colleges because the state colleges aren't what they used to be for a variety of reasons. Education in the true sense of the word is becoming irrelevant. Certification is what matters. And the solution seems to be to keep pushing more kids to go to college on one side of things and more tiger parenting on another side. The (truly) gifted kids get lost in all this because they simply aren't part of the catastrophe.

Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 10:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Val


1) an adult employee working full-time deserves a living wage



Doesn't that perspective lead to wage compression?
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 11:07 AM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
Originally Posted By: Val


1) an adult employee working full-time deserves a living wage



Doesn't that perspective lead to wage compression?



How?
Posted by: Aufilia

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 11:08 AM

Lucas warns that any such effort will be gamed by more well-to-do parents, angling to get their children in, then fighting to ensure the gifted group gets better teachers, newer technology, and other advantages.

Unfortunately, this sums up how things our in our district, except that all the pushy, gaming parents haven't actually gotten better teachers or more technology: they've just made it harder for children of the non-gaming parents to actually get into the program. I could barely get the people at the TAG office to talk to me until my daughter aced their test. Until then, I was just another pushy parent to be treated with suspicion and wariness.
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: HowlerKarma
Dude's point is well-taken there. As long as we see this as a 'zero sum game' in which ANY resources directed at students in the 99th percentile are "diverted" from "those poor children" at the 1st percentile, this isn't going to change. At some point we need to step back and ask which is the better investment in the long run-- and admit that even if it IS a zero-sum game, maybe we're not calculating the opportunity costs correctly.



I agree. I also agree with Indigo that the problem is about attitude.

IMO, the best way to educate HG+ kids is to give them their own schools with teachers who are degreed in the subjects they teach and have had a lot training in the needs and capabilities of gifted kids. Sending HG+ high schoolers to community colleges is another approach for older students.

I can see that it's difficult for an elementary classroom teacher to meet the needs of a kid with an IQ north of 140. Lots of kids to be dealt with, the threat of losing funding or your job if the low performers don't pass a high stakes test, and, honestly, the teacher may not really know what to do. It makes more sense to me to let the kids attend their own schools. But the cutoffs would have to be numerical and not based on fuzzy things like teacher recommendations.

I know that LAUSD has a set of K-12 schools for kids with IQs over 145. That's a pretty high cutoff, and confines the students to the HG+ crowd. Does anyone here have experience with them? Do the kids move through material faster? Etc.?
Posted by: Bostonian

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 12:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Val

The point is that, in this country, choices are lacking where they weren't 30+ years ago. We've moved away from the ideas that 1) an adult employee working full-time deserves a living wage

There is no single "living wage", so using the phrase just obfuscates. A minimum wage job may represent a living wage for a young adult living with his parents but not for an adult trying to support a family of four. The fact that the latter cannot make ends meet at that job is not a reason to deprive the former person of a job opportunity. It is up to people to delay having children until they can support them. Employers pay based on productivity and supply and demand, not need.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Bostonian
There is no single "living wage", so using the phrase just obfuscates. A minimum wage job may represent a living wage for a young adult living with his parents but not for an adult trying to support a family of four. The fact that the latter cannot make ends meet at that job is not a reason to deprive the former person of a job opportunity. It is up to people to delay having children until they can support them. Employers pay based on productivity and supply and demand, not need.


Speaking of zero sum games... this.
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 01:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Bostonian
A minimum wage job may represent a living wage for a young adult living with his parents...


By that standard, my kids earn a living wage, then. Each of them gets around $200 - $300 per year in gifts and as payment for doing extra chores. They can pretty much buy anything their little hearts desire, within reason (DS13 was dismayed to learn recently that he couldn't afford the drone they sell at Barnes and Noble).

The solution must just be to ensure that no one ever moves out of the parental home.
Posted by: aquinas

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 01:46 PM

Originally Posted By: HowlerKarma
Dude's point is well-taken there. As long as we see this as a 'zero sum game' in which ANY resources directed at students in the 99th percentile are "diverted" from "those poor children" at the 1st percentile, this isn't going to change. At some point we need to step back and ask which is the better investment in the long run-- and admit that even if it IS a zero-sum game, maybe we're not calculating the opportunity costs correctly.


The problem is intertemporal discounting and the fact that political will exists on a 4 year cycle. There's no will politically to develop a coherent human capital investment strategy because revenue generating ability isn't linked one-to-one with voter head counts.

I agree that the opportunity costs aren't being fully considered--not even close. There is a large fiscal multiplier on disruptive innovation, the kind that is disproportionately in the hands of the most cognitively able. But it's easy to argue away because those gains will only be realized a generation or more away, while the cost of social assistance is more palatable and imminent.

There are perverse risk appetites at play. That society chooses time and again to bankroll the least able students tells me we're an excessively risk averse society when it comes to education. We don't trust today's most able students to provide a greater opportunity set in the future. Yet we continue to borrow heavily against the future assuming the next generation will pick up the tab absent disruptive innovations. It's lunacy.

I'd rather see the most assistance given where low economic privilege and high cognitive ability intersect. Nobody should be penalized because their parents are poor. Similarly, nobody should be doubly penalized for coming from an economically disadvantaged family and being cognitively well endowed in an unsupportive education system. Ironically, grade skipping is cheap. Go figure.
Posted by: aquinas

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 02:01 PM

I should add that when I say "revenue generating ability", I mean an individual's ability to both earn his/her own income and create opportunities for others to do so, either through creating new technologies or markets, jobs, engaging in mentorship that enhances future generations' productivity, etc...
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 02:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Val
Originally Posted By: Bostonian
A minimum wage job may represent a living wage for a young adult living with his parents...


By that standard, my kids earn a living wage, then. Each of them gets around $200 - $300 per year in gifts and as payment for doing extra chores. They can pretty much buy anything their little hearts desire, within reason (DS13 was dismayed to learn recently that he couldn't afford the drone they sell at Barnes and Noble).

The solution must just be to ensure that no one ever moves out of the parental home.


Or-- workhouses!!
Posted by: chris1234

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 03:31 PM

Totally agree that helping kids who are struggling is the RIGHT thing to do, but pretending like every child is going to be at grade level if you just spend enough also seems unrealistic. There have to be lines of achievement below which kids shouldn't be allowed to fall without kicking into some SERIOUS interventions, but that should be the same for the other side of things. (gifted children)

Thankfully the author does note that the simplest of interventions for the gifted such as skipping a grade do seem to result in solid returns on feelings of challenge, and life achievement. It would have been nice to see the author challenge the studies that show if you identify leaders you are then identifying non-leaders.

I think the point about selecting for music and sports is a good one and a bad one. On one hand, people tend to accept that not everyone is going to be a sports god or a rock star. Not many people get to do that.
But chemist seems much more mundane; should most folks be able to obtain that? Maybe. Maybe not. I guess part of the problem is that there continues to be a debate over whether it is a. natural talent or b. superior opportunities that move any first grader up through a phd program.

I read an article the other day, 'tips for college students' and the professor writing the article starts right in on how "there isn't something called 'intellect' which is stuffed in your head... " the point being, that students need to study. But really, intelligence isn't a thing?
Hm. Wish I could find the link, but you get the point. This is a person teaching at a college, supposedly, and the idea that some students learn things more quickly is not true (to him).

Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 03:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Val
IMO, the best way to educate HG+ kids is to give them their own schools with teachers who are degreed in the subjects they teach and have had a lot training in the needs and capabilities of gifted kids.
This may work well in areas with sufficient population density to fill a school with HG+ pupils. In others areas, a school-within-a-school, or flexible multi-age cluster grouping by ability and readiness may serve students well without risking claims of "tracking" (Lots of ideas for ideal educational setting at this recent thread .)
Posted by: puffin

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 04:17 PM

Statisically there are probably not enough kids in my city to do more than one class of combined year one to six. Two classes if they are less than standard size maybe.
Posted by: ultramarina

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 05:33 PM

Quote:
It's also true that (IMO) we're trying to get everyone to meet a benchmark that a fair number of those people probably CANNOT meet. The reasons are myriad, of course-- but some of those problems are mutable and some of them aren't. Until we start (as a society) teasing apart which problems can be fixed in that cohort, it seems an awful lot like throwing good money after bad.


Well, we actually need to start before K. This is why Obama is pushing pre-K, to the dismay of the right and the left and so on and so forth. The research is fairly strong, but it has to be really, really good pre-K, not cookie-cutter, with trained teachers teaching a complex curriculum with care, sensitivity, and community support, and unfortunately that probably doesn't scale at all well. Still, states like OK and FL that have instituted universal pre-K have seen some gains.

There's interesting work being done with interventions to get parents to just TALK to their babies more. They use a device to measure words spoken. You get feedback quickly so you try harder. People really do want their kids to succeed. Many don't really know what this would entail.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/17/14 06:31 PM

Quote:
There's interesting work being done with interventions to get parents to just TALK to their babies more.
Some may say this is ideal: free, accessible to all, while providing a bond between parent and child. smile
Posted by: Bostonian

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/18/14 05:13 AM

Originally Posted By: ultramarina
Quote:
It's also true that (IMO) we're trying to get everyone to meet a benchmark that a fair number of those people probably CANNOT meet. The reasons are myriad, of course-- but some of those problems are mutable and some of them aren't. Until we start (as a society) teasing apart which problems can be fixed in that cohort, it seems an awful lot like throwing good money after bad.


Well, we actually need to start before K. This is why Obama is pushing pre-K, to the dismay of the right and the left and so on and so forth. The research is fairly strong, but it has to be really, really good pre-K, not cookie-cutter, with trained teachers teaching a complex curriculum with care, sensitivity, and community support, and unfortunately that probably doesn't scale at all well.


Here is a less optimistic take on pre-K from someone who has studied it a lot:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2014/02/26-does-prek-work-whitehurst
Does Pre-k Work? It Depends How Picky You Are
by Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst
Brookings
February 26, 2014

...

Not one of the studies that has suggested long-term positive impacts of center-based early childhood programs has been based on a well-implemented and appropriately analyzed randomized trial, and nearly all have serious limitations in external validity. In contrast, the only two studies in the list with both high internal and external validity (Head Start Impact and Tennessee) find null or negative impacts, and all of the studies that point to very small, null, or negative effects have high external validity. In general, a finding of meaningful long-term outcomes of an early childhood intervention is more likely when the program is old, or small, or a multi-year intervention, and evaluated with something other than a well-implemented RCT. In contrast, as the program being evaluated becomes closer to universal pre-k for four-year-olds and the evaluation design is an RCT, the outcomes beyond the pre-k year diminish to nothing.

I conclude that the best available evidence raises serious doubts that a large public investment in the expansion of pre-k for four-year-olds will have the long-term effects that advocates tout.
Posted by: ultramarina

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/18/14 05:40 AM

And, alternatively, a reply to that post:

http://investinginkids.net/2014/02/28/grading-the-pre-k-evidence/

An important point that gets lost a lot is that test score gains from pre-K often fade as children age and get subsumed into the inferior educational system. However, and fascinatingly, there still seem to be advantages that show up in adulthood.

RCTs are very, very difficult to put into practice with live children in large numbers, as anyone with social science background knows. While it's certainly important to try one's best to get close to that, we won't get much of anywhere if we insist on pure RCTs for anything to ever matter with human subject research.
Posted by: ultramarina

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 07:39 AM

Re my post about closing the "words spoken" gap:

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/17/289799002/efforts-to-close-the-achievement-gap-in-kids-start-at-home
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: ultramarina
Thanks for sharing this inspiring article. smile
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 08:29 AM

Originally Posted By: ultramarina
Quote:
It's also true that (IMO) we're trying to get everyone to meet a benchmark that a fair number of those people probably CANNOT meet. The reasons are myriad, of course-- but some of those problems are mutable and some of them aren't. Until we start (as a society) teasing apart which problems can be fixed in that cohort, it seems an awful lot like throwing good money after bad.


Well, we actually need to start before K. This is why Obama is pushing pre-K, to the dismay of the right and the left and so on and so forth. The research is fairly strong, but it has to be really, really good pre-K, not cookie-cutter, with trained teachers teaching a complex curriculum with care, sensitivity, and community support, and unfortunately that probably doesn't scale at all well. Still, states like OK and FL that have instituted universal pre-K have seen some gains.

There's interesting work being done with interventions to get parents to just TALK to their babies more. They use a device to measure words spoken. You get feedback quickly so you try harder. People really do want their kids to succeed. Many don't really know what this would entail.



Agreed.

I find it unbearably sad that we seem to only throw money at this problem far, far too late for it to really matter to most of the children who could benefit from that intervention.


On the other hand, HeadStart doesn't produce very robust improvements, either-- so is it that it is just too little? Or is it that past toddlerhood, it's already too late?
Posted by: binip

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 09:18 AM

Val The LAUSD is the largest in the country, has a huge pool of extremely affluent children in pockets, and is probably the only place you could cordon off the 'gifted' children in that way. In Seattle and its suburbs, the cutoff is actually higher and most programs have children in separate classrooms. Seattle has one gifted school which is overcrowded, and which has generated huge amounts of political ill-will, mainly due to the insufferable parents who insist that their children couldn't learn if near the other children. It's not a great situation, I will say that.

Our suburb has separate classrooms. The IQ cutoff is 150 or so, much more rare than 145, but due to test prep and affluence etc. they have, I believe, about 8 gifted 3rd grade classrooms for 2014-15, among a total of approximately 25 or so 3rd grade classrooms district-wide.

Yes, that is statistically ridiculous and impossible. I believe it comes down to the fact that parental input inflates scores upwards and we have early testing (1st grade). So whereas you'd probably see more of these kids at IQ=135 four years on (even with parental prepping continuing, it just has less of an effect than motivation), that is not what we see in the gifted program.

HowlerKarma--Robust results--

A lot of these programs do not prove effective in the long run because we do not have a meritocracy in place to incentivize academic achievement.

Scholarships are hard to come by--you can't just be #2 in your class and be in the 95% for SATs. In many countries, that would be enough to guarantee you a spot in college. I know a woman who was in this position but due to a lack of religious or other affiliation (she was "generic" white) she didn't get a single scholarship. She dropped out of college. This was 15 years ago and things are much worse now. I myself had better SATs, but was "only" 3rd in my class among AP class takers. I, too, dropped out of college but went to community college. Only by working 80 hour weeks at a minimum wage that was 20% higher in terms of purchasing power than it is now, was I able--as a minority-scholarship eligible person--to finish school, with loans. We were from a small town. I know three other people, one black, two white, who dropped out due to economic reasons. All of them were in the top five in their classes, did well on their SATs. How we would later laugh about those lies they told us:

"Work hard in school and you'll get a scholarship!!!"

Yeah, right.

American children actually do pretty well, before the poor figure out the extent to which it doesn't matter how well they do--the price of college is too high, the community college too far, gas prices too high, the need for cash to help their parents pay rent too urgent, to go. And they give up.

That is what causes so many of these effects to drop off in high school, and why our international standings drop off. People stop trying because they lose hope. If only we could lie more effectively to teenagers.

From Wikipedia:

"International comparison

In the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment 2003, which emphasizes problem solving, American 15 year olds ranked 24th of 38 in mathematics, 19th of 38 in science, 12th of 38 in reading, and 26th of 38 in problem solving.[134] In the 2006 assessment, the U.S. ranked 35th out of 57 in mathematics and 29th out of 57 in science. Reading scores could not be reported due to printing errors in the instructions of the U.S. test booklets. U.S. scores were behind those of most other developed nations.[135]

However, the picture changes when low achievers, Blacks and Hispanics, in the U.S. are broken out by race. White and Asian students in the United States are generally among the best-performing pupils in the world; black and Hispanic students in the U.S. have very high rates of low achievement. Black and Hispanic students in the US do out perform their counterparts in all African and Hispanic countries.[136][137]

US fourth and eighth graders tested above average on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study tests, which emphasizes traditional learning.[138]"

Head Start targets children to keep them out of jail. Literally, lower incarceration rates in the future is a major explicit goal of this program. But it's useless, because education doesn't keep you out of jail. Being white and living in a nice place does--statistically speaking, of course. But when you're putting in tons of effort, it's not nice to know that you have about a 50 times higher chance of having it all taken away from you, than some other kid putting in less effort, all because of the color of your skin, or the junky town / neighborhood you live in.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2014/01/marijuana-legalization-in-black-and-white/

(Sorry for the religious link.)

Inequality is what causes our low outcomes later on. Children keep striving... until an older brother gets arrested, a parent gets sick or loses their job, and then the economic reality hits.

Though Asians and Whites do better on average, if you break those groups down by socio-economic group and heritage, there are shocking divisions among each sub-set. The poor rural white vs. the New England entrenched classes, the political refugee Asian (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) vs. the economic migrant Asian (Chinese, Japanese), vs. African Americans who are descended from slaves vs. African economic migrants (Kenyans, Tanzanians, Ghanaians) vs. African political refugees (Somalis, Sudanese, Congolese)--it comes down to why you came here, and who you think you are, and what place you think you can have in this society.

/soapbox

It's like the RCT question brought up earlier. We can't control for all these factors, so just thinking of making elementary school meritocratic, or distributing resources in that pool, does not make sense. In order to incentivize people to perform, we absolutely must create a meritocracy.

That's why though I have one view about what I want for my own child, I have another view about what I want to see for education and social programs in the US.
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 09:34 AM

That's why though I have one view about what I want for my own child, I have another view about what I want to see for education and social programs in the US.

Agreed.

Being poor and white (in terms of educational disadvantage) may in fact be one of the very worst starting places for any child-- because those children don't even have a lot of "interventions" intended to mitigate the negative impact of their life circumstances, and all too frequently, no "hand up" materializes until college (if then). Increasingly, it simply never materializes at all.

Yes, those children have a huge invisible privilege due to race-- but it also comes with a hefty side of "you're already entitled" and expectations that may be completely unrealistic when they have actually got far more in common with classmates and peers who are low-income and of a minority ethnicity, with little support from their home environments. Everyone ASSUMES that a white child in kindergarten lives in an "enriched" environment, and that's profoundly untrue for some of those children. frown

I've talked about this problem with a friend who is a middle school teacher at a neighboring (and rural/poor) district-- she can't give research assignments because 90% of her students lack basic transportation even to the municipal library-- which won't give them library cards anyway if they live outside of city limits. She estimates that at least 70% of her students (who are about 90% white) lack internet resources at home.
Posted by: bluemagic

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 09:47 AM

Originally Posted By: binip
Val The LAUSD is the largest in the country, has a huge pool of extremely affluent children in pockets, and is probably the only place you could cordon off the 'gifted' children in that way. In Seattle and its suburbs, the cutoff is actually higher and most programs have children in separate classrooms. Seattle has one gifted school which is overcrowded, and which has generated huge amounts of political ill-will, mainly due to the insufferable parents who insist that their children couldn't learn if near the other children. It's not a great situation, I will say that.
NYC had gifted magnet schools as well.

Quote:

Scholarships are hard to come by--you can't just be #2 in your class and be in the 95% for SATs. In many countries, that would be enough to guarantee you a spot in college.

Entirely depends on the university you attend. Many top tier universities offer NO academic scholarships because everyone who gets in is already top tier. But there are many smaller liberal arts schools that LOVE that #2, #3 or even #25 kid and offer large scholarships to bright kids. I talked with several of these schools when looking at colleges for my DD.
Posted by: binip

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 09:52 AM

Quote:
But there are many smaller liberal arts schools that LOVE that #2, #3 or even #25 kid and offer large scholarships to bright kids."


But many of these scholarships don't make up for the tuition increases over state schools. That was my case, and my friend's case. We got scholarships to Christian schools who effectively made it so that we'd "only" have to pay state university fees.

We couldn't even afford that. Her parents had a small business in a small town that was in the red every other year, and my own mom was a single mom with two children.

We never even considered top-tier schools like MIT, Harvard, etc. though we'd both received invitations to apply based on SAT scores. I'm just trying to explain the situation that young people are in when they calculate whether it's worth it to continue striving towards that goal.

Quote:
I've talked about this problem with a friend who is a middle school teacher at a neighboring (and rural/poor) district-- she can't give research assignments because 90% of her students lack basic transportation even to the municipal library-- which won't give them library cards anyway if they live outside of city limits. She estimates that at least 70% of her students (who are about 90% white) lack internet resources at home.


Oh, I believe it. I was one of two minorities in my all-white class and definitely the white kids from poor families had it the worst. They believed they had no chances at scholarships, their parents were working-class and had no idea about college, and they didn't feel comfortable in the city. They felt like people thought they were hicks.

Of course I can also see how inner-city black kids get caught up in the net.

The point is that we have GOT to stop jacking the poor around in this country and make it worthwhile to get in the top 25% of your class.

Funny how people here seemed to think free college was anti-meritocratic. I think that if you have admissions criteria that are higher, it would be the epitome of meritocracy, at least after awhile, because there is a real, tangible reward there for children to strive for. Just stay in that top 25%, that top 10%. In Texas the 10% rule has seen disproportionate growth in the share of Hispanic and black high-school graduates and college entrants, though it's still unequal. But they made gains during a recession, which is pretty amazing.
Posted by: Zen Scanner

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 10:08 AM

Charlotte has an HG magnet program with the district having about 1/5 the students of LAUSD.

If the cutoff is 145 (1/500), districts with as few as 50k students should be able to field an HG program though they'd have to have looser age groupings. Also have to account for private schools and homeschooling. But if the will is there.
Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: binip


We never even considered top-tier schools like MIT, Harvard, etc. though we'd both received invitations to apply based on SAT scores.


Maybe you should have, because many top-tier schools have need-blind admissions and give large grants to students without the financial means to pay the tuition.
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 11:16 AM

While that may well be true, the issue here is that the PARENTS (and all too often, the poor schools that such students attend) aren't aware of that fact.

In high school, all that I thought about such institutions was "out of my pay grade" quite frankly. They were for prep-school kids. ME? Well, my NMSF letter (which I still have in a box somewhere, probably) was something I considered a curiosity and a fluke. I had no real concept of what it meant.
Posted by: bluemagic

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 11:22 AM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
Originally Posted By: binip


We never even considered top-tier schools like MIT, Harvard, etc. though we'd both received invitations to apply based on SAT scores.


Maybe you should have, because many top-tier schools have need-blind admissions and give large grants to students without the financial means to pay the tuition.

Problem is many poorer districts don't expect as many of the students to go to university outside the local state school. Especially a top tier school and they don't have the resources like trained school counselors, informational meetings for parents, and colleges touring their schools. Poorer students (irregardless of race) often don't know the possibilities of what is out there or belief they even have a chance. The US system of applying for colleges, grants, scholarships, financial aid is complicated and often confusing.
Posted by: binip

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By: bluemagic
Originally Posted By: DAD22
Originally Posted By: binip


We never even considered top-tier schools like MIT, Harvard, etc. though we'd both received invitations to apply based on SAT scores.


Maybe you should have, because many top-tier schools have need-blind admissions and give large grants to students without the financial means to pay the tuition.

Problem is many poorer districts don't expect as many of the students to go to university outside the local state school. Especially a top tier school and they don't have the resources like trained school counselors, informational meetings for parents, and colleges touring their schools. Poorer students (irregardless of race) often don't know the possibilities of what is out there or belief they even have a chance. The US system of applying for colleges, grants, scholarships, financial aid is complicated and often confusing.


You hit the nail on the head. We didn't know anything about needs-blind admission in our small town.

The guidance counselor literally told me that he didn't have any information for me but "with that you'll be just fine". He suggested that if I was worried about paying for college, I go part time (which most people know is a drop-out trap).
Posted by: Zen Scanner

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 12:00 PM

When I went, needs based was also to be propped up with student and parental loans (with parental loans requiring immediate payments.) I would've been able to get a free ride at a top state school but went top tier and my mom couldn't afford for me to stay after a year with needing to pay on the parent loan. So, ended up in a mediocre state school.
Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 05:17 PM

Originally Posted By: binip
Originally Posted By: bluemagic

Problem is many poorer districts don't expect as many of the students to go to university outside the local state school. Especially a top tier school and they don't have the resources like trained school counselors, informational meetings for parents, and colleges touring their schools. Poorer students (irregardless of race) often don't know the possibilities of what is out there or belief they even have a chance. The US system of applying for colleges, grants, scholarships, financial aid is complicated and often confusing.


You hit the nail on the head. We didn't know anything about needs-blind admission in our small town.

The guidance counselor literally told me that he didn't have any information for me but "with that you'll be just fine". He suggested that if I was worried about paying for college, I go part time (which most people know is a drop-out trap).


I honestly assumed that acceptance was NEVER based on ability to pay. That seemed to be a completely separate issue to me. Luckily, I had heard that you should always apply to a "stretch" school, so I did. Then my stretch school gave me a grant that was about the same as tuition. I don't think there was a cheaper option for me. I never consulted the school guidance counselor for anything. Maybe I would have received terrible, and soul crushing advice. Then again, I was confident that I was smarter than anyone working for the school, so I probably would have ignored anything they told me. Based on your experience, they don't know much about tailoring their advice for uncommon circumstances, so maybe I was right to avoid them.

Having said that, guidance counselors ought to be reliable sources of appropriate information: especially for children with few other resources.
Posted by: JonLaw

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 07:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Zen Scanner
When I went, needs based was also to be propped up with student and parental loans (with parental loans requiring immediate payments.) I would've been able to get a free ride at a top state school but went top tier and my mom couldn't afford for me to stay after a year with needing to pay on the parent loan. So, ended up in a mediocre state school.


I took one look at how much the Ivy wanted me to shell out and decided that free was better.

Granted, I had no real interest in going to college at the time, so that certainly helped.

I was trying to maximize revenue, not go into debt. If they didn't give me a free ride, I crossed them off my list.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 07:39 PM

Quote:
... don't have the resources like trained school counselors, informational meetings for parents, and colleges touring their schools.
A supply of good books about college selection and application in a school's library, and announced in the school newsletter could help overcome the dearth of information.

For further outreach to populations without internet access... a TV channel with a variety of programming on college selection and application may be helpful.
Posted by: binip

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 08:31 PM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
Originally Posted By: binip
Originally Posted By: bluemagic

Problem is many poorer districts don't expect as many of the students to go to university outside the local state school. Especially a top tier school and they don't have the resources like trained school counselors, informational meetings for parents, and colleges touring their schools. Poorer students (irregardless of race) often don't know the possibilities of what is out there or belief they even have a chance. The US system of applying for colleges, grants, scholarships, financial aid is complicated and often confusing.


You hit the nail on the head. We didn't know anything about needs-blind admission in our small town.

The guidance counselor literally told me that he didn't have any information for me but "with that you'll be just fine". He suggested that if I was worried about paying for college, I go part time (which most people know is a drop-out trap).


I honestly assumed that acceptance was NEVER based on ability to pay. That seemed to be a completely separate issue to me. Luckily, I had heard that you should always apply to a "stretch" school, so I did. Then my stretch school gave me a grant that was about the same as tuition. I don't think there was a cheaper option for me. I never consulted the school guidance counselor for anything. Maybe I would have received terrible, and soul crushing advice. Then again, I was confident that I was smarter than anyone working for the school, so I probably would have ignored anything they told me. Based on your experience, they don't know much about tailoring their advice for uncommon circumstances, so maybe I was right to avoid them.

Having said that, guidance counselors ought to be reliable sources of appropriate information: especially for children with few other resources.


I knew he wasn't a genius, but he was my only source of information. Ivies supposedly meet need upon acceptance but the reality of endowments means a limit to needy students being accepted.

This was in 1994. We didn't have the Internet at home yet in our house.
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/19/14 10:14 PM

Exactly-- and I was applying a decade before that. NO internet then. I had classmates that went to Brown, Columbia, Stanford, and Yale, etc. But they were well off.

Looking back, I realize that they were no more well-off than my own family is now, but I thought then that they were "rich kids."

Nobody from my side of the tracks had a thought in our heads about an ELITE college. That would have been.... I dunno-- uppity of us, or something. I was pretty daring in applying to several private colleges. RPI, for instance. (Not that they threw enough $ at me to make it matter, but they WERE quite keen to have me, I guess).

Even the respectable but not elite private college where I did decide to go-- when my financial aid fell through due to a huge SNAFU, that was that. Off I went to the local state college-- there was no way for MY family to generate that much tuition money without my grant aid. I struggled even to pay for the state college.
Posted by: Bostonian

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 05:17 AM

A study has found that sending information packets to bright low-income students raises the chance they apply to the more selective colleges:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/a-simple-way-to-send-poor-kids-to-top-colleges.html
A Simple Way to Send Poor Kids to Top Colleges
By DAVID LEONHARDT
New York Times
March 29, 2013

Quote:
Among a control group of low-income students with SAT scores good enough to attend top colleges — but who did not receive the information packets — only 30 percent gained admission to a college matching their academic qualifications. Among a similar group of students who did receive a packet, 54 percent gained admission, according to the researchers, Caroline M. Hoxby of Stanford and Sarah E. Turner of the University of Virginia.

David Coleman, the president of the College Board, told me that he considered the results powerful enough to require changes at his organization, which conducts the SAT. “We can’t stand by as students, particularly low-income students, go off track and don’t pursue the opportunities they have earned,” Mr. Coleman said. The group may soon begin sending its own version of the experiment’s information.

Why not send information by email to all students with good-enough scores, not just low-income students? Parental knowledge of college admissions is not perfectly correlated with income.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 06:47 AM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
I honestly assumed that acceptance was NEVER based on ability to pay. That seemed to be a completely separate issue to me.


They are. Just because a student gets accepted, doesn't mean the door is opened. There's still the issue of being able to pay for it.

Originally Posted By: DAD22
Luckily, I had heard that you should always apply to a "stretch" school, so I did. Then my stretch school gave me a grant that was about the same as tuition. I don't think there was a cheaper option for me. I never consulted the school guidance counselor for anything.


Well, if you know one college financing success story, you know one.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 07:00 AM

Quote:
Funny how people here seemed to think free college was anti-meritocratic.
If I understand correctly, the concerns expressed whether a system would be set up which may be a meritocracy in name only... perhaps considering it to be a form of merit to come from a "junky town or neighborhood", to be considered "hicks", to be "poor" urban or rural, or of a particular ethnicity... a system in which meritocracy may be a euphemism for a quota-tocracy. Concerns may arise from actual practices in play today which may go beyond outreach/inclusion to bestowing a favored status such as seeking first generation college students.

While many may agree that "admissions criteria that are higher" is equal, equitable, and accessible criteria upon which to base a meritocracy, others believe that less ought to be required of certain groups. People are individuals, not demographic statistics. Individualism, not collectivism, is the way up: in schools, individuals who master academic challenge.

Considering the whole person, it may be desirable if they also then "give back" to the culture or community in some way of their choosing... to inform, inspire, and empower others to strive...
Quote:
from author Loren Eiseley, The Starthrower ...I made a difference for that one.

As with other discussions on this board which contemplate/debate public policy, it may be wise to consider not only ways in which to make things better for whomever is in the top 25%... but also for the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors who are in the bottom 75%. Particular attention may be paid to the cutoff at the 25%, especially those who "almost made it", those who "would have made it in most other academic settings" (those possibly which are less competitive), and also the manner in which some who have made the cutoff have competed (possibly by undermining others or by academic dishonesty).

The system in place today... actually a collection of different systems... approximates a meritocracy as each entity may seek and reward various criteria. In a centralized system, there would not be options.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 07:03 AM

Originally Posted By: madeinuk
Re. Bostonian's last para on post #185354

I agree. My DW and I have worked up from some pretty disadvantaged circumstances so that we earn enough so that we CAN save money to pay for our DD's college. I do not want to hear some smug liberal telling me or my daughter that her potential admission application will be be not looked upon favourably based on her academic merits (God willing may they last until then) but instead will likely be compromised by her parents' willingness to toil on her behalf.


I hope it works out, but like the rest of us, you're one market crash, one programming error, one criminal act, or one medical emergency away from insolvency. Something to think about.

In my experience, "willingness to toil" is something that can be found in abundance in poor communities.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 07:09 AM

Quote:
I hope it works out, but like the rest of us, you're one market crash, one programming error, one criminal act, or one medical emergency away from insolvency. Something to think about.

In my experience, "willingness to toil" is something that can be found in abundance in poor communities.
Agreed.
Posted by: madeinuk

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 07:53 AM

I actually don't think 'free' college is anti-meritocratic - quite the opposite.

I only say that to qualify for this you should have sterling academics.

The whole society benefits from the higher wages that come from having a skilled workforce. The economy booms due to higher real disposable income for starters.

Letting people in who really ( academically ) should not be there just wastes money and sets these people up for one more failure. Dropping standards to accommodate them also devalues the qualification in the first place leading to a higher degree arms race which in turn means that a lot of bright productive people end up joining the workforce much later than they should do which in turn reduces their potential lifetime earnings.
Posted by: JonLaw

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Dude
I hope it works out, but like the rest of us, you're one market crash, one programming error, one criminal act, or one medical emergency away from insolvency. Something to think about.

In my experience, "willingness to toil" is something that can be found in abundance in poor communities.


Then you end up in my office.

Granted, a problem is that while there is a "willingness to toil" there is also often an unwillingess to pay taxes.

Which results in an unwillingess of Medicare to pay your hospital bills or an unwillingess of Social Security to give you and your children any benefits.
Posted by: HowlerKarma

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 08:31 AM

Originally Posted By: madeinuk
I actually don't think 'free' college is anti-meritocratic - quite the opposite.

I only say that to qualify for this you should have sterling academics.

The whole society benefits from the higher wages that come from having a skilled workforce. The economy booms due to higher real disposable income for starters.


Sadly, this ideal (which is lovely) runs smack into the intractable reality that so many people just are not capable of learning at an advanced level.

Quote:


Letting people in who really ( academically ) should not be there just wastes money and sets these people up for one more failure. Dropping standards to accommodate them also devalues the qualification in the first place leading to a higher degree arms race which in turn means that a lot of bright productive people end up joining the workforce much later than they should do which in turn reduces their potential lifetime earnings.



Well-stated. Too many people in colleges belong in (what once existed as) skilled trades, occupational training programs, etc. Certificate programs at institutions of higher learning are simply nonsensical and (IMO) counter to the original mission of such institutions.
Posted by: madeinuk

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 08:32 AM

Quote:

I hope it works out, but like the rest of us, you're one market crash, one programming error, one criminal act, or one medical emergency away from insolvency. Something to think about.


You've got that right, Dude! Very sad but also very true.

Jonlaw,

I haven't any problem with paying taxes but I would like them to be fair. A flat tax with zero squirmy deductions or other loopholes is fair IMO.
Posted by: JonLaw

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 09:08 AM

Originally Posted By: madeinuk
.Jonlaw,

I haven't any problem with paying taxes but I would like them to be fair. A flat tax with zero squirmy deductions or other loopholes is fair IMO.


I was talking about the Social Security/Medicare portion.
Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 09:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Dude
Originally Posted By: DAD22
I honestly assumed that acceptance was NEVER based on ability to pay. That seemed to be a completely separate issue to me.


They are.


No. Not always. Some colleges / universities consider an applicant's ability to pay when making acceptance decisions.

Here's a link discussing GW's decision to use a "need-aware" policy:

GW Need Aware Acceptance Policy

Originally Posted By: Dude
Just because a student gets accepted, doesn't mean the door is opened. There's still the issue of being able to pay for it.


That's why colleges are ranked into categories regarding how sufficient their aid packages are for prospective students with financial needs. Many of the best colleges are in the "full need" category: they meet 100% of that need.

Originally Posted By: Dude

Well, if you know one college financing success story, you know one.


My point is that there are opportunities for the brightest students to go to the best schools despite the sticker price. There are over 50 colleges and universities in the US that have need-blind admissions and cover the full financial needs of their US students. That means if you can get in, you can go. You try to make that sound insignificant, but it's not.

The fact that some high school students don't know this is lamentable, but it doesn't change the fact.
Posted by: binip

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 09:53 AM

Quote:
The fact that some high school students don't know this is lamentable, but it doesn't change the fact.The fact that some high school students don't know this is lamentable, but it doesn't change the fact.


It doesn't change the fact but it makes it somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't count if people don't know about it.

Moreover, needs-blind is somewhat of a misnomer. They do have a limit to those spots. They cannot give 100% of students a full ride, even if 100% of the most qualified applicants are unable to pay.
Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 10:15 AM

Originally Posted By: binip
Quote:
The fact that some high school students don't know this is lamentable, but it doesn't change the fact.


It doesn't change the fact but it makes it somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't count if people don't know about it.


That's why we need to talk about it, and make people aware, right?

Originally Posted By: binip

Moreover, needs-blind is somewhat of a misnomer.
They do have a limit to those spots. They cannot give 100% of students a full ride, even if 100% of the most qualified applicants are unable to pay.


Are you proposing some huge negative correlation between aptitude and ability to pay? Just because there's a theoretical case in which the number would have to be limited doesn't mean that it's actually happened, or happens regularly.

If you have some special insight into how the schools are practicing policies that differ from those they advertise, then that's interesting, and news worthy. Short of that, I don't see how you can call it a misnomer.
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 10:20 AM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
There are over 50 colleges and universities in the US that have need-blind admissions and cover the full financial needs of their US students. That means if you can get in, you can go. You try to make that sound insignificant, but it's not.


Yes, but a lot of those colleges are offering loans as a large part of that financial aid. So, sure, a student may be able to attend a top-tier college, but he could end up with a mortgage-sized debt after four years there. For example, a family member owes something like $55-$60K for a recent Ivy education. Some students end up owing $100,000 or more.

In my opinion, it's not worth it. I went to an elite women's college back when students weren't allowed to borrow so much. I only owed $7,000 when I was done. The bankruptcy laws were different then, and loans weren't handed out like gift cards.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 10:34 AM

fulfilling 100% of demonstrated need
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that some high school students don't know this is lamentable, but it doesn't change the fact.
It doesn't change the fact but it makes it somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't count if people don't know about it.
Placing books on college selection and application in school libraries, and touting these books in school newsletters is a quick and cost-effective means of ameliorating the dearth of knowledge on a widespread basis.

Quote:
That's why colleges are ranked into categories regarding how sufficient their aid packages are for prospective students with financial needs. Many of the best colleges are in the "full need" category: they meet 100% of that need.
This has been debated on other threads, but is worth mentioning again: "meeting need" may consist of a collection of:
- merit scholarships
- grants
- work/study (jobs on campus)
- LOANS, on which interest begins accruing immediately

Quote:
That means if you can get in, you can go.
Not necessarily. Scholarships and grants may be very helpful, work/study can provide a set of skills and a connection to the campus while earning a small wage, and LOANS may be unaffordable and/or work against a student and/or their family... they may come with huge opportunity cost and may add drastically to the cost of tuition. Follow the money... who benefits from the student loan principle and interest payments?

IMO, there is dignity is acknowledging one cannot afford something, even at a highly discounted price. Living within one's means is to be lauded, not to be scoffed at.

Quote:
They do have a limit to those spots. They cannot give 100% of students a full ride, even if 100% of the most qualified applicants are unable to pay.
Actually they probably can, in the short run. To preserve and enhance both the institution's reputation and endowment health, Colleges/Universities may seek individuals who, based on demonstrated accomplishment/achievement/voluntary service and giving back to the community(ies) they have been a member of to-date, are likely to advance/promote the mission of the college/university as students and as alumni. For example, some may become prominent business people, politicians, artists, humanitarians, scientists, fundraisers, leaders, and even financial contributors (giving back or paying it forward as the case may be). As with other relationships in life, there may be "givers" and "takers". Colleges/universities may be wise in considering which students were high academic achievers as "takers" and possibly select instead a few more "givers" as being a better "fit" with their student body, mission, and campus life.

Once people are generous donors to a college/university, the other side of the coin which institutions may consider is educating donors' progeny; legacies develop. While some may dislike this, it indicates a sense of stability which may be considered a strong positive.
Posted by: binip

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 10:45 AM

"Actually they probably can, in the short run."

Well, certainly, but I think we can all agree that we don't want our nation's finest private universities to be sustainable only in the short run.

"Placing books on college selection and application in school libraries, and touting these books in school newsletters is a quick and cost-effective means of ameliorating the dearth of knowledge on a widespread basis."

Definitely. I also believe that visiting schools and doing proper assemblies so that people get basic information is very helpful, because many students don't know what they don't know, and their parents are clueless.

"Some students end up owing $100,000 or more."

Many do, actually. I know two! For a bachelor's degree! In the liberal arts! Gah! I was like... "Dude, were you crazy?" They sure regret it now but they signed when they were teenagers.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 10:51 AM

Quote:
I think we can all agree that we don't want our nation's finest private universities to be sustainable only in the short run.
Yes, read the context which included insight into colleges/universities making selections for sustained endowment health.

Quote:
Quote:
Placing books on college selection and application in school libraries, and touting these books in school newsletters is a quick and cost-effective means of ameliorating the dearth of knowledge on a widespread basis.
Definitely. I also believe that visiting schools and doing proper assemblies so that people get basic information is very helpful, because many students don't know what they don't know, and their parents are clueless.
Probably a higher cost per contact on school visits? Sustainable outreach efforts budgeted on a cost per contact may require reaching the most people with a resource which may be leveraged repeatedly.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 10:53 AM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
That's why colleges are ranked into categories regarding how sufficient their aid packages are for prospective students with financial needs. Many of the best colleges are in the "full need" category: they meet 100% of that need.


Those rankings are absolutely useless for a number of reasons, foremost among them because colleges frequently call steering students into high-interest student loans "meeting needs."

Originally Posted By: DAD22
Originally Posted By: Dude

Well, if you know one college financing success story, you know one.


My point is that there are opportunities for the brightest students to go to the best schools despite the sticker price. There are over 50 colleges and universities in the US that have need-blind admissions and cover the full financial needs of their US students. That means if you can get in, you can go. You try to make that sound insignificant, but it's not.


It's obviously not insignificant to you, is it? That doesn't mean your story is significant for the population at large, though.

You yourself attributed your situation to a significant amount of luck, so it doesn't necessarily affect the brightest, does it? Conversely, some of our brightest members have shared their stories in this thread, where they didn't have that luck factor. So let's set aside the anecdotes and look at the overall picture, and we see that your story is an exception, not the rule.
Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:12 AM

Originally Posted By: Dude
So let's set aside the anecdotes and look at the overall picture, and we see that your story is an exception, not the rule.


The fact is that you can get an education from one of the best schools in the country with no money down, and graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt... if you can get in. That's not luck, that's how they've decided to respond to students with very limited financial means - as a rule!
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
The fact is that you can get an education from one of the best schools in the country with no money down, and graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt... if you can get in. That's not luck, that's how they've decided to respond to students with very limited financial means - as a rule!


Tens of thousands of dollars in high-interest, non-dischargeable debt, an unfavorable employment market, and no experience... yes, I believe we agree on the nature of the problem.
Posted by: Bostonian

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:28 AM

I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads. I am not surprised by arguments over normative questions such as "Should college be free?". Arguments over verifiable facts I don't get.
Posted by: Val

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Bostonian
I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads. I am not surprised by arguments over normative questions such as "Should college be free?".


"Should college be free?" is a very different question from "Should we be yoking our young people to non-dischargeable debt?"
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Bostonian
I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads. I am not surprised by arguments over normative questions such as "Should college be free?". Arguments over verifiable facts I don't get.
Agreed! It is good to consider multiple sides of an issue. Anecdotes often represent what is outside the mainstream. These success stories can be inspirational. While they are verifiable facts, they may disappear when statistics are compiled. They are worth hearing, and also worth keeping in perspective.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Bostonian
I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads.


Well, sure, 5000 low-income students get a great education, so let's forget about the hundred thousand or so who would benefit based on similar qualifications.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 11:58 AM

Quote:
Well, sure, 5000 low-income students get a great education, so let's forget about the hundred thousand or so who would benefit based on similar qualifications.
Let's celebrate the 5000 who are benefitting! Let's simultaneously see what can be done to benefit more students.

Another poster mentioned some parents being clueless... another mentioned families without internet access... rural families without access to a local library.

What books might they benefit from having in their school library... what books might help school guidance counselors, parents, and students?

Here's one: What Colleges Don' Tell You... http://www.amazon.com/What-Colleges-Dont-Other-Parents/dp/0452288541
Posted by: JonLaw

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 01:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Val
Originally Posted By: Bostonian
I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads. I am not surprised by arguments over normative questions such as "Should college be free?".


"Should college be free?" is a very different question from "Should we be yoking our young people to non-dischargeable debt?"


I will again point out that debt that cannot be paid back will not be paid back.

It's more of a problem in the for-profit world.

Some of my clients enroll and take out student loans to live off of rather than for educational opportunity, per se.
Posted by: Bostonian

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: JonLaw
Originally Posted By: Val
Originally Posted By: Bostonian
I think DAD22 is saying that some of the elite schools are a good financial deal for low-income students who get in. He is factually correct, and I have written about this in earlier threads. I am not surprised by arguments over normative questions such as "Should college be free?".


"Should college be free?" is a very different question from "Should we be yoking our young people to non-dischargeable debt?"


I will again point out that debt that cannot be paid back will not be paid back.

It's more of a problem in the for-profit world.

Some of my clients enroll and take out student loans to live off of rather than for educational opportunity, per se.


It's a trend:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loans-entice-borrowers-more-002100614.html
Student Loans Entice Borrowers More for Cash Than a Degree:
Low-Cost Debt Proves a Draw for Some Caught Up in Weak Job Market
The Wall Street Journal
By Josh Mitchell
March 3, 2014 9:39 AM
Posted by: DAD22

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 01:39 PM

Originally Posted By: Dude


Tens of thousands of dollars in high-interest, non-dischargeable debt, an unfavorable employment market, and no experience... yes, I believe we agree on the nature of the problem.


It's hard to complain about high interest rates when someone gives you something at a 50% (or more) discount.

If you graduate with $60,000 in debt on an education sold to wealthier individuals at $120,000, then the interest rate would have to be about 16% for the education to cost you the same amount. Anything less than that and we're discussing the value of a top tier school as an investment in general, and being poor has little to do with it.

Ideally I would like to see private banks making educational loans based on their assessment of individual student risks. Smart kids studying in-demand fields should see very low rates in a system like that. Under-qualified students would pay more, as would students studying fields with lower earning potential. This has an added benefit of discounting the study of fields predicted to be in-demand, and thus better matching educational choices with what our businesses need.
Posted by: JonLaw

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
It's hard to complain about high interest rates when someone gives you something at a 50% (or more) discount.

If you graduate with $60,000 in debt on an education sold to wealthier individuals at $120,000, then the interest rate would have to be about 16% for the education to cost you the same amount. Anything less than that and we're discussing the value of a top tier school as an investment in general, and being poor has little to do with it.


The point is that the college finance system has gone completely off the rails due to the massive issuance of debt that has absolutely no business existing in the first place.
Posted by: Dude

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 01:53 PM

Originally Posted By: DAD22
It's hard to complain about high interest rates when someone gives you something at a 50% (or more) discount.


It's easy when the thing is priced too high to begin with. Half off egregious = excessive.

Originally Posted By: DAD22
Ideally I would like to see private banks making educational loans based on their assessment of individual student risks. Smart kids studying in-demand fields should see very low rates in a system like that. Under-qualified students would pay more, as would students studying fields with lower earning potential. This has an added benefit of discounting the study of fields predicted to be in-demand, and thus better matching educational choices with what our businesses need.


I can tell you don't have much experience in the world of finance.

The primary controlling factors for risk-based pricing in your model would be the co-signers: their credit ratings, debt loads, assets, and earnings. Only when co-signers are not available or cannot be approved due to credit risk will the risk pricing begin to consider student achievement levels, chosen major, etc., as a significantly influencing factor. Obviously, not having co-signers represents elevated risk. Low SES backgrounds are, in and of themselves, a significant risk factor for not completing college. The major as an indicator for future earnings has extremely limited utility, because of the numbers of incoming freshmen who drop out and change majors.

So realistically, you're looking at high-achieving, low-SES engineering majors receiving loans at 17.5%, as opposed to 18.5% for political science, and 19.5% for fine arts.

The low-achieving student majoring in underwater basket weaving gets a loan at 8% with wealthy co-signers.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 01:57 PM

Quote:
Ideally I would like to see private banks making educational loans based on their assessment of individual student risks. Smart kids studying in-demand fields should see very low rates in a system like that. Under-qualified students would pay more, as would students studying fields with lower earning potential. This has an added benefit of discounting the study of fields predicted to be in-demand, and thus better matching educational choices with what our businesses need.
While this embodies traditional business model, some may say this red-lines students with poor prospects, trapping them in poverty. Meanwhile the current practice of equalizing the cost of student loans is a means of redistribution, with some students/families essentially subsidizing others although this may not be well-known by those who've not thought it through.

A given college/uni may charge a specific price per credit. Some classes may be less expensive to teach (ie English) and some may be more expensive (ie anything with a lab component).

Analogy to a salad bar: if it's priced per-pound, everyone eating a half-pound salad may be getting a different value for their expenditure of the same money... depending upon the mix of ingredients they chose. For example, iceberg lettuce in season may cost the deli much less than other more nutritious ingredients.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 02:05 PM

Quote:
"Should college be free?"
The questions are really:
1) Should college be free at point of service?
2) If college were to be free at point of service, how would it be funded?
3) Who do we perceive as the primary payers today? Who do we perceive as the primary beneficiaries today?
4) Who do we envision as the primary payers under a model which may be free at point of service? Who do we envision as the primary beneficiaries under a model which may be free at point of service?
5) What models are in use in other places?
6) What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages?
Posted by: Zen Scanner

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 02:27 PM

Originally Posted By: indigo
Analogy to a salad bar: if it's priced per-pound, everyone eating a half-pound salad may be getting a different value for their expenditure of the same money... depending upon the mix of ingredients they chose. For example, iceberg lettuce in season may cost the deli much less than other more nutritious ingredients.


Some may say that a profit-minded salad bar eater will choose the most expensive ingredients. If enough people profiteer it (which I think may be described as a duty by some political philosophies,) then the salad bar to remain profitable must either remove the more expensive ingredients, raise the price per pound, charge extra for some items, or possibly twiddle with perceived values. Then eventually people complain when the salad bar is all croutons, iceberg lettuce, simulated cheese product, and mystery pink meat.

I have no idea if this actually is relevant, but I do enjoy me some analogies.
Posted by: indigo

Re: The poor neglected gifted child - 03/20/14 03:46 PM

@ZS, Enjoyed your gifted mind visiting the salad bar. Avoid the mystery item in favor of the quinoa. smile