I read the articles and don't know what to think about the first one.

I agree with tigerle about the classifications. The 0.1 to 9.9% group isn't the one making policy decisions or driving the money-based problems that we have. That privilege is firmly in the hands of the 0.1%, which is also far less dependent on a paycheck than the group below it.

So what's the point of that first article besides guilt feelings? After reading it, is anyone going to quit your job, renounce your privilege, and not help your kids get through college? Or should we keep our jobs and campaign for change?

It's true that elite college admissions have a lot of problems, and yes, these problems have a wealth barrier around them. This is bad.

But on the other hand, that particular problem strikes me as being an upper-middle-class issue. Lots of handwringing about it also lets people ignore the fact that elite colleges aren't even a blip on the radar of 90% or more of American college students --- and not because of talent. Some people want to stay close to home. Some aren't interested in elite colleges. Some don't see value for money, and some don't think you need an elite educational pedigree for success (I'm in the last two groups). Some people just like the idea of a big State U or a small land grant U.

Which brings me to that second article, about a community college (CC) that's created a meaningful way to address the problems of poverty and education.

I just finished a semester-long CC math-based STEM class that was populated by very bright second-year students. The vast majority were transferring to regular state universities and colleges to study engineering or physics.

There were students in my class who had taken six years to finish a two-year-degree --- because they couldn't afford to move faster. I heard about food stamps, living with parents in their 20s, not being able to afford necessities, etc. A course cost of even $400 (fees, books, transportation) for a CC course is far from trivial for these students. An on top of that is the money not earned because of needing time to study.

Some of these students may end up $50,000 in debt after two years of full-time UC, but as STEM types in hot fields, at least they'll be more likely to pay it off in a reasonable number of years --- unlike students who don't have the talent or interest required for a STEM degree.

So I agree that $12,000 college admissions counselors is a sign of severe problems in wealth inequality. I also think that reducing that inequality will take a lot more than lots of upper middle class mea culpas.