Originally Posted by Val
Originally Posted by Quantum2003
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.