Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The New Aristocracy

People who read this article may come to different conclusions about what should be done. What happens at the community college level is more relevant to reducing poverty than who is admitted to the most selective schools.

Colleges Are No Match for American Poverty
Amarillo College, in Texas, is working hard to accommodate low-income students—but it can only do so much.
by MARCELLA BOMBARDIERI
The Atlantic
May 30, 2018

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.

It starts before kindergarten. When the College Admissions Battle Starts at Age 3

It starts way before birth.

Seriously, there is research that poor maternal nutrition (eg because of widespread famine during WWII) long before conception has epigenetic effects on the mother‘s children’s health - in the third and fourth generation, maybe!

And of course, stress and poor nutrition during pregnancy has detrimental effects on the child’s health, and just hearing the language of instruction spoken in utero positive effects. And so on.

I‘m totally on Val‘s side of the discussion. You can’t ask the upper middle class referenced here to stop working, or to stop supporting their children’s education, just as you can’t ask them to deliberately ruin their health. Mandatory alcohol consumption in the first trimester maybe, to level IQ for everyone? Yes, it’s a ludicrous proposition, but sometimes it takes a modestly ludicrous proposal to show what other arguments are ludicrous, too.

You can ONLY expect parents to support measures that help poorer children if they don’t hurt their own children. By which I would NOT count having to pay taxes or contributions for universal high quality preschool and health care for all children, since this benefits all children, regardless of parents income.

Likewise, I am all for aggressive economic desegregation of schools, and, by means of public housing programs, neighbourhoods, as long as (unsurprisingly for someone who hangs out on this board) there is also effective readiness grouping for actual teaching and just as effective policing of neighbourhoods.

You can (and, morally, I believe, should) make sure that public services are levelled.

You can’t level families.

Some may say that spending $12K USD on college admissions is out of reach for most families. In addition to considering it a luxury good and an unnecessary expense, some may say that families with a DIY approach are learning much more and developing themselves more fully by virtue of their research.

Wealth inequality is rather fluid in the US, as evidenced by persons of modest financial means rising to the top of their fields... including Chris Gardner, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Ben Carson, Oprah Winfrey, and many authors, actors/actresses, musicians, and athletes.

"Wealth inequality" provides a strong incentive for many individuals to work, suffer, sacrifice, save, and achieve greater economic stability. Meanwhile, US taxpayers fund many social services, providing a strong safety net. Due to protections of free speech and religious freedom in the US, there are also many charitable foundations providing discretionary funding to help select individuals/groups in need achieve the American Dream of upward socio-economic mobility.

I have read a biography of Bill Gates -- he came from a well-off family that sent him to a private school that provided an opportunity to learn about computers that was rare at the time. From Wikipedia :

I think letting all Americans keep most of their earnings so that they can supplement the education of their children is better than taxing away their earnings and sending it to an inflexible and inefficient government school system.

- Dutch famine during WWII (1944-45 Hunger Winter)
- Chinese famine (1959-1961)

Unfortunately, today there may be self-imposed malnutrition during pregnancy, by various individuals/groups... ranging from those who wish to stay slim... to those who choose to forego nutritiously dense foods for foods which they may find more palate-pleasing due to high content of sugar, butter, salt, etc... essentially beginning their child's life in a "food desert."

This type of pre-birth social engineering was foretold in the 1932 dystopian novel, Brave New World.

While I welcome and respect all viewpoints,
1) I do not necessarily agree with all viewpoints,
2) I do not place equal weight on all viewpoints,
3) I believe that ultimately it is up to US taxpayers to determine how US tax money is to be spent.

When government is called upon to act as an arbiter in matters of law between other parties, it may be seen as impartial. However when government itself is providing the decision-making regarding services such as health-care and housing, it is no longer seen as impartial, but as insular, defensive of its decisions, and even in some cases retaliatory in its decisions. There is an old saying: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

One definition of FREE refers to things being without cost at point of service.
One definition of FREE refers to people being self-determining, unhindered by law or regulation; having personal liberty.
There may be an ironic balance in that getting more "free" stuff often comes with a tradeoff of being less "free" as an increasing number of life-decisions may be made for a person by an outside entity.
In the case at hand, taxpayers are compelled to provide pre-determined amounts of money to the government, which the government then rations out and redistributes through a variety of programs with various requirements including the providing of private and personal information for the government databases.
There is a fine balance, beyond which a tipping point exists: if given a choice, which form of "free" do taxpaying US citizens prefer?

OOps, my bad. I copied from a list, and did not edit. Good catch, thanks Bostonian.

I partially agree. However I would want to ensure that all people (not just smart ones) have the ability to develop their talents.

I make the distinction between developing talents and using talents because...
1) Using talents sounds a bit like government-assigned positions, jobs, or tasks.
2) Individuals may wish to work in fields outside their talent area (interests and talents do not always align).
3) Individuals may choose to change careers and/or areas of focus.
4) Opportunity to develop talent sounds more like investing in our kids' learning at the appropriate challenge level (rather than having them use their talents to function as free tutors to other students in their classrooms).
5) I favor individual determinism and internal locus of control, not collectivism.

LOL, I may have had Brave New World at the back of my mind, I don’t claim it as an original idea! But what I was actively thinking of the scary statistic that in one of the poorest communities (I think it might be the poorest community, actually) in the US, Oglala Lakota on the Pine Ridge reservation, 25% of children are now being born with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Downward levelling is NOT an option.



And that is what is going to happen, regardless of what a handful of intellectually understimulated parents of whatever citizenship discuss on some obscure Internet forum. You really needn’t worry on that front at all. Why would you be opposed to the intellectual exercise of refuting an argument on its merits?

I do notice that you carefully use „taxpayer“ and „taxpaying citizens“ as opposed to „voters“ or „citizens“ or „the US electorate“. I understand that according to the US constitution, taxes and the budget are the purview of Congress, which is elected by US citizens regardless of taxpaying status. Is that something you’d like to see changed? Do you feel that citizens of lower financial status aren’t created equal?
[quote=indigo
There is a fine balance, beyond which a tipping point exists: if given a choice, which form of "free" do taxpaying US citizens prefer? [/quote]

What if there were a meaningful discrepancy between what a majority of citizens eligible to vote were to prefer and what a majority of taxpaying citizens would prefer? What if services such as access to universal affordable health care, universal preschool, universal community college etc (not necessarily free and public, but publicly legislated and/or organised and heavily subsidised) were preferred by a majority but a majority of taxpaying citizens were opposed? (I think that is actually not a far fetched scenario, and not just for the US?). Who should win, according to you? (Disregarding political parties and realities for this thought experiment...) Who should win according to the US constitution, and the bill of rights?

Indigo and Bostonian, if the idea of a levelling the playing field (upwards for the “non-aristocracy”!) doesn’t engage you as sportsmen or -women, how about the idea of the economic returns as fiscal conservatives? Offering as many children as possible the best possible chance of into productive citizens (taxpayers!), able to support themselves and their families? The damage to children’s physical and mental health induced by the stresses of poverty and poor educational outcomes are currently creating a permanent (“sticky”, according to the Atlantic article) underclass, not just in the US, a large part of the female and underage proportion of which needing permanent public assistance and a large part of the male proportion needing to be incarcerated, at HUGE cost to the taxpayer. The returns for every dollar spent wisely on chiildren are well known. Would such sound investment be un-American?