Great, in-depth article about how the class in the 0.1-10% range of household incomes is, through collective choices made on an individual level, creating barriers to upwards mobility. Although many of them got there during a time of social mobility and meritocracy, that has changed drastically over the last generation, and their children, who are by no means guaranteed to have the same ability levels as they did, will find it easy to compete with gifted children raised outside this class due to the barriers they are erecting. The writer is a member of this class, and the article is written from his perspective.

The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy

I read this article also, and found it thought-provoking. Worth reading. The author is, I think, more accurately described as a legatee of the old American aristocracy, who is now a member of the new aristocracy.

Excellent article.

Worth calling out is Part 4, The Privilege of an Education. Some of the more chastening quotes from that section are below to whet the appetite of any people considering reading the article.

I need to quibble with the class designations a bit, which are clearly drawn from 19th century England.
The 0.1 percent are very much comparable to the English aristocracy, who held the real power, most of the real wealth and who could endanger their position really only by high treason.
The 9.9 are the landed gentry, who needed to constantly ensure that their comfortable lifestyle was shored up by good investments, advantageous marriages and good connections to help place the younger sons in respectable professions. Illness or banktruptcy could wipe them out. And yes, they were very much considered middle class.
Still not a compliment to any society to be like 19th century England from a social cohesion standpoint, but it’s when they built a military, industrial and cultural empire...
I wish I could just watch comfortably from the European sidelines how it all will shake out, but sadly, if the US sneezes, the rest of the world will fall really sick, as the saying goes.

I've read that students writing about their summer travel does NOT impress admissions officers.

Measures of academic achievement such as SAT scores do rise with parental income, and Ivies are selecting from the right tail, so a substantial differential in representation by income group is to be expected for that reason alone. Another factor is that high-income parents are more likely to encourage their children to apply to more selective schools.

Did you read the article?

From the article:
Assortative mating by education entails assortative mating by IQ, so the children of the top 10% are likely to have higher IQs, which is a big reason they compile the resumes needed to get into selective colleges.

Richard Herrnstein wrote an article in the same magazine in 1971 that could have forecasted the findings of this article. Later he and Charles Murray expanded it into a book, "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life".

Education
The Atlantic
September 1971
I.Q.
by Richard Herrnstein


The full article is here. It begins with the syllogism cited above:

Along the line of the private school pipeline to elite colleges, it's apparently even more exclusive than most realize. Even within the private school community, there is a subset of elite boarding schools which yield even more outsized benefits when it comes to acceptance to the elite colleges.

It's interesting the extent that these pathways to wealth and power are being determined at the middle school and high school level, not the college or professional level as is commonly discussed. And they're not being determined by effort but by whether or not one's parents choose the right private school and were able to pay for it.

Exactly.

Money buys expensive, not necessarily quality. And, like in any market, there are lemons in higher ed.

I should also forewarn you, in case you’re putting all your eggs in the Ivy basket, that IQ isn’t universally high at selective colleges. In some cases, the children of Ivy alumni don’t fall in accepted gifted ranges. And that’s okay—the world isn’t universally gifted, and people are of equal value and dignity irrespective of their investment accounts or IQ.

The most important measures of a person can’t be quantified by a single metric—character, leadership, ingenuity, courage, compassion, mercy—and I’m far more concerned about assortative matching on those dimensions than the mercenary ones. I think you’ll find most gifted people think similarly. There are a lot of middling affluent or bright people in the world; that’s not unique. But what is remarkable is someone who doesn’t get embroiled in status symbols, and instead lives out a life rich in meaning without constantly referring to the “scoreboard” for personal validation. This article is about precisely that.

But I guess it’s the same story as the comparison between old money and nouveau riche. As the article indicates, genuinely talented people don’t spend time feeling superior about what they were born with, or engage in paranoid thought exercises about how to preserve their grasp on social supremacy when the barriers for other groups’ participation are finally removed; they get busy tackling the world’s toughest problems and being awesome. Part of that is acknowledging that the world has room for lots of talent and success, and so much the better the more people who share in it.

Now, let’s talk about how to use all the big brains floating around here to ensure that all smart people, irrespective of starting positions, have the opportunity to use their talents. That’s worth discussing!

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?

Tribal reservations within the US geographical boundaries such as Pine Ridge are their own sovereign nations with their own form of government. Ironically the population you mention is poor, but somehow choosing to afford enough alcohol to damage their offspring. This is tragic. Meanwhile, I am aware of many organizations funneling care to Pine Ridge.

It seems we agree?

I would not be opposed to the intellectual exercise of refuting an argument on its merits. But rather than an argument with merits, I see strong statements of opinion:
No. But I see your question as revealing a possible misunderstanding or conflation of the concepts of:
- voting to elect Congress,
- Congress voting on the budget.

No. But I feel that your question may be baiting and an attempt to veer the conversation off-topic.

I would anticipate that elected representatives would continue to analyze the amount of taxes likely to be collected and available to the US government to budget for spending on various programs and services... and weigh that against the burgeoning National Debt... then attempt raising taxes, which tends to trigger taxpayer feedback.

Allocating more money to public education does not necessarily invest in children by providing more teachers, aides, materials, etc... but may instead result in higher payments to teacher's unions, salaries, benefits, more layers of government bureaucracy, administrative red tape, etc.

In the US the average government school teacher's salary:
- exceeds average personal income,
- is the largest part of most government school budgets,
- may be part of a compensation package which also includes life-long post-retirement benefits.



As others have acknowledged upthread, the experiences related in the OP's article do not describe life in mainstream America. I personally do not resent the successes of others, but find them inspirational. I applaud the significant philanthropic efforts of the Davidsons, in creating the Davidson Institute for Talent Development (including this gifted issues discussion forum), following their business success.

Totally on the US part, of course! I wouldn’t agree on the taxpaying bit of it (IF it were up to me in anyway..) but I’ll get to that.

True, strong on the opinion part but bit weak on the argument part here. The argument I felt was implied was that if one agrees on the values of fairness and equality of opportunity, though not outcome - and if we disagreed on the first one, there wouldn’t be any point in talking at all, and would have assumed that the second is such a quintessential American value it’s not in question either - there needs to be some government engagement in levelling the playing field, in providing services for those children whose families can’t provide for them (as opposed to somehow compel high SES families to provide fewer services for their own children, which I think we would all agree is a ludicrous proposition).
I understand you do not oppose support for low SES children, but feel that philanthropist engagement is preferable because it doesn’t remove agency for the wealthy the way mandatory taxation does. I argue that philanthropy is wonderful, but also spotty, unpredictable and arbitrary and thus can’t provide the stability of support that children from high SES backgrounds get from their parents but children from low SES backgrounds lack.
Example: If a highly capable low SES student makes it into a top US university that meets full need, they’ve got it made. But it is a tiny proportion of low SES kids that even has a shot, and with acceptance rates hovering between 5 and 20%, even lower than that for regular decision, it is a minuscule proportion of low SES kids that can profit, and it’s totally unpredictable. What the vast majority of college bound low (and middling, actually) SES kids would need is their state schools meeting full need, from community colleges to the flagship because that is where almost all of them will end up. Only government funding could provide that predictability.

And then you’d have to go further and further back in these children’s life to offer them the chance to get that far.

I agree that Pine Ridge isn’t an example that can be generalised, just one of the worst ways you can deprive the children of a community of opportunities forever. Wherever you want to apportion blame, the children don’t carry any, but bear the consequences...

You can look at any drug and crime riddled neighbourhood anywhere else. Much progress has been made on tackling the crime part (with the attendant social and economic problems of large scale incarceration) but very little on the public health, education and jobs part.

If the US still being the global beacon of opportunity and social mobility that it used to be is something one cares about (one can care about that without being a US citizen, you know) it matters what other countries do, because the Atlantic article provides graphs that show that internationally, the US is falling behind on these measures.

No misunderstanding. As elected members, they are responsible to the voters, not just the taxpaying voters. Historically, there is a lot of precedent of the franchise being granted according to economic standing, land holding, tax brackets etc.

Not meant to be baiting, meant to engage you in the discussion! Not the same thing for me. If you feel it is the same thing for you, I apologise.


See above. In reality, high SES voters and in particular rich donor voters will have more influence on spending decisions. The question is whether these rescissions then serve the country as a whole.

Strawman! Who is talking about teacher salaries or claiming that raising them is “spending money wisely?” Take the example of high quality preschool provision, which HAS been proved to improve life outcomes in respect to years stayed on school, employment, income, incarceration etc (in fact, turning citizens into taxpayers who might otherwise not have been!), recouping every dollar spent several times over. Win win.
Interestingly, and more on the topic of this forum in general, these programs have been shown to NOT raise IQ scores permanently. Those will stubbornly drop back to pre-program levels. So, the genetic advantage of the „aristocracy“, as far as it goes (which is probably not as far as is being claimed) remains untouched.



Fully agreed. And all gifted kids, high or low SES, deserve focused support. I just wonder how many kids outside the privileged classes referenced on the Atlantic article are being reached.

I partially agree. But I would say that ALL kids (not just gifted kids) deserve support, affirmation, validation... leading to internal locus of control.

As previously mentioned by several posters upthread, the experiences related in the OP's article (top 0.1-10% range of household incomes) do not describe life in mainstream America.

Through extensive taxpayer-funded public services and programs, as well as private foundations, endowments, charities, non-profit organizations, many hours of pro-bono work, and volunteerism... there is outreach providing a safety net to virtually all who wish to live the American Dream of upward socioeconomic mobility through their own hard work, dedication, perseverance, struggle, sacrifice, learning from setbacks/failures. And then lending a helping hand to others.

I found the numbers a bit surprising. It is obviously that the top 0.1% is very wealthy but the next 9.9% are more affluent that I expected. According to the article, in 2016, you would need to be a millionaire (net worth of 1.2 million) to even reach the bottom of the top 10 percent.