|
1 members (jenjunpr),
412
guests, and
31
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
I also don't see any real contradiction either. Parental ability to pay (and I would add parental ability to provide tutoring or otherwise impart knowledge) is one component that results in advantages to these kids but their own hard work is also a necessary component. I believe that HowlerKarma's original point was that the high level of what she called pampering/primping/houthousing is a major contributing factor to increasing the costs of college for kids who don't have the benefits that the upper middle class does. HowlerKarma, correct me if I'm wrong. The un-primped kids have to compete with the resources of the parents of the upper middle class, and they simply can't succeed in that competition, regardless of how capable they may actually be. The wealthier kids need the merit scholarships the LEAST yet are at a significant advantage in getting them precisely because of parental resources. This leaves the middle class kids with LOANS. This is about growing inequality folks, not internal drive. I thought that HowlerKarma was referring to miscellaneous minor scholarships for which it is a pain to apply but from which she would not expect more than 1-2% contribution toward college costs. My thought was that most kids in the extreme range would not bother with these minor scholarships. Then again, I am not sure that I know what upper middle class means to everyone or how broadly that category can be defined. On the growing inequality issue, I do see that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297 |
Nobody here has said that we should discriminate against your kids. Stop segueing the argument. That tactic is too obvious to fool people here.
The point is that many scholarships, as currently awarded, are more likely to go to students who don't need them. Hence, we have rising inequality, plus rising debt burden for students who may be very talented but who can't afford expensive resume boosters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
I will have to stick with the more accurate "privileged" terminology. I don't agree with how the word "privileged" is used nowadays, for reasons explained by economist David Henderson below. Step #1 in the process of discounting the achievements of my children and therefore justifying discrimination against them and resentment towards them and me is to label them "privileged". The Real Meaning of Privileged “They live in an expensive mansion, fly first-class to foreign countries, and eat at the finest restaurants. They send their kids to private schools. They’re so privileged.” How often have you heard some variant of the lines above? I’d bet it’s a lot. Yet, typically, the word “privileged” is inaccurate. We certainly all know or know of people who have a great deal of wealth and who spend it the way the people in the quoted lines do. But are these people privileged? Not necessarily. They’re obviously wealthy, but that’s not the same as being privileged. Privilege, instead, has to do with receiving special treatment, typically from government, because of one’s special legal status.
Friedrich Hayek points this out in his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom. According to Hayek, the right to own land was at one time reserved for the nobility. That was privilege. But the term, he writes, came to apply to anyone who owned property, even though virtually every adult now has the right to own property. We see something similar today. Rich people are called “privileged” even if they earned their wealth without political pull. Those who are poor, on the other hand, are called “underprivileged,” even if their being poor has nothing to do with having less than the average amount of privilege. Well, that is the problem with many words in the modern lexicon. I guess I am leaning towards its denotation rather than its connotations. Perhaps, advantaged is a better word? I definitely see that my children, even if I spent no money on them, are clearly more advantaged than the general populace just by virtue of having educated parents who are committed to education.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Step #1 in the process of discounting the achievements of my children and therefore justifying discrimination against them and resentment towards them and me is to label them "privileged". Shouldn't you wait to see whether your kids achieve things first? I would wait 20 years or so to see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,432 |
Nobody here has said that we should discriminate against your kids. Stop segueing the argument. That tactic is too obvious to fool people here.
The point is that many scholarships, as currently awarded, are more likely to go to students who don't need them. Hence, we have rising inequality, plus rising debt burden for students who may be very talented but who can't afford expensive resume boosters. You have completely lost me on the first paragraph - what discrimination? What sequeing? ??? As to the second paragraph, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297 |
You have completely lost me on the first paragraph - what discrimination? Bostonian's original message has been removed. Here it is: Step #1 in the process of discounting the achievements of my children and therefore justifying discrimination against them and resentment towards them and me is to label them "privileged".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I also don't see any real contradiction either. Parental ability to pay (and I would add parental ability to provide tutoring or otherwise impart knowledge) is one component that results in advantages to these kids but their own hard work is also a necessary component. I've never understood why anyone would call extra studying in an air-conditioned, well-lit environment "hard work," especially among the gifted cohort. Sure, it's work, because you'd rather be doing something else, but it's safe, comfortable, and quiet. I chose to ascend the socioeconomic ladder primarily because I tried hard work, and found I didn't care for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 272 |
Let's please keep the topic related to education.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
I also don't see any real contradiction either. Parental ability to pay (and I would add parental ability to provide tutoring or otherwise impart knowledge) is one component that results in advantages to these kids but their own hard work is also a necessary component. I believe that HowlerKarma's original point was that the high level of what she called pampering/primping/houthousing is a major contributing factor to increasing the costs of college for kids who don't have the benefits that the upper middle class does. HowlerKarma, correct me if I'm wrong. The un-primped kids have to compete with the resources of the parents of the upper middle class, and they simply can't succeed in that competition, regardless of how capable they may actually be. The wealthier kids need the merit scholarships the LEAST yet are at a significant advantage in getting them precisely because of parental resources. This leaves the middle class kids with LOANS. This is about growing inequality folks, not internal drive. I thought that HowlerKarma was referring to miscellaneous minor scholarships for which it is a pain to apply but from which she would not expect more than 1-2% contribution toward college costs. My thought was that most kids in the extreme range would not bother with these minor scholarships. Then again, I am not sure that I know what upper middle class means to everyone or how broadly that category can be defined. On the growing inequality issue, I do see that. Well, it's both things, actually. Firstly, yes-- more advantaged students are actually winning the scholarship sweepstakes in ever larger numbers. I was deeply saddened, actually, by my DD's cohort, and what I observed in it. There were distinct groups of students there, and in our SES bracket, DD is unusual in that her parents are incredibly savvy about how to play the game. Many of my DD's (on paper, anyway) highly capable classmates came from homes which were similar in terms of SES advantage, but for whom the parents in those homes did not know the relative importance of making sure that the resume builds a coherent high-achiever portrait by senior year. THOSE kids wound up getting almost NOTHING in terms of scholarships. Seriously-- nothing. One in particular was a national merit commendee, graduated in the top 1%, had a couple of EC's demonstrating well-roundedness and task-persistence, and still only got a tuition waiver for about 10% of his annual costs at a public uni. THAT is what it means now to be middle class with fairly typical, bright parents, but lack a "hook" that is a means to get scholarship $.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
