If college admission were purely meritocratic — eliminating favoritism for the children of alumni, celebrities and big donors — upper-middle-class children would still be overrepresented. That’s because the applicants who would be accepted instead would also hail overwhelmingly from the upper middle class.
Right. So a rich-poor divide exists. The author of the article states: "even more discouraging: The differences start early in a child's life, then linger." But why is that "discouraging" in the first place? Should it be otherwise? If the rich are illegally victimizing the poor, they should be brought to justice. If the rich are legally victimizing the poor, then our laws need updating. If the poor are not victims at all, (or only victims in their own minds) then why focus on divides? Why not focus instead on helping all students?
If the most cost effective way to improve academic performance for the next generation is to develop web-based teaching tools, then we shouldn't allow our fetish for helping those at the greatest risk to cloud our judgment. People on this forum have plenty of experience with the difficulty of advocating for those (gifted children) who others don't consider to be in need of help.
Those who focus on divides tend to want to reduce them. There are those that see any divide as evidence of systemic wrong-doing. I have often heard "solutions" proposed that effectively create systemic wrongdoing against those previously advantaged groups, bringing us toward a
Harrison Bergeron level of "fairness".
I lament every missed opportunity that results in a child falling short of their potential.
