Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education The poor neglected gifted child

They are. Just because a student gets accepted, doesn't mean the door is opened. There's still the issue of being able to pay for it.


Well, if you know one college financing success story, you know one.

If I understand correctly, the concerns expressed whether a system would be set up which may be a meritocracy in name only... perhaps considering it to be a form of merit to come from a "junky town or neighborhood", to be considered "hicks", to be "poor" urban or rural, or of a particular ethnicity... a system in which meritocracy may be a euphemism for a quota-tocracy. Concerns may arise from actual practices in play today which may go beyond outreach/inclusion to bestowing a favored status such as seeking first generation college students.

While many may agree that "admissions criteria that are higher" is equal, equitable, and accessible criteria upon which to base a meritocracy, others believe that less ought to be required of certain groups. People are individuals, not demographic statistics. Individualism, not collectivism, is the way up: in schools, individuals who master academic challenge.

Considering the whole person, it may be desirable if they also then "give back" to the culture or community in some way of their choosing... to inform, inspire, and empower others to strive... As with other discussions on this board which contemplate/debate public policy, it may be wise to consider not only ways in which to make things better for whomever is in the top 25%... but also for the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors who are in the bottom 75%. Particular attention may be paid to the cutoff at the 25%, especially those who "almost made it", those who "would have made it in most other academic settings" (those possibly which are less competitive), and also the manner in which some who have made the cutoff have competed (possibly by undermining others or by academic dishonesty).

The system in place today... actually a collection of different systems... approximates a meritocracy as each entity may seek and reward various criteria. In a centralized system, there would not be options.

I hope it works out, but like the rest of us, you're one market crash, one programming error, one criminal act, or one medical emergency away from insolvency. Something to think about.

In my experience, "willingness to toil" is something that can be found in abundance in poor communities.

Agreed.

I actually don't think 'free' college is anti-meritocratic - quite the opposite.

I only say that to qualify for this you should have sterling academics.

The whole society benefits from the higher wages that come from having a skilled workforce. The economy booms due to higher real disposable income for starters.

Letting people in who really ( academically ) should not be there just wastes money and sets these people up for one more failure. Dropping standards to accommodate them also devalues the qualification in the first place leading to a higher degree arms race which in turn means that a lot of bright productive people end up joining the workforce much later than they should do which in turn reduces their potential lifetime earnings.

Then you end up in my office.

Granted, a problem is that while there is a "willingness to toil" there is also often an unwillingess to pay taxes.

Which results in an unwillingess of Medicare to pay your hospital bills or an unwillingess of Social Security to give you and your children any benefits.

Sadly, this ideal (which is lovely) runs smack into the intractable reality that so many people just are not capable of learning at an advanced level.



Well-stated. Too many people in colleges belong in (what once existed as) skilled trades, occupational training programs, etc. Certificate programs at institutions of higher learning are simply nonsensical and (IMO) counter to the original mission of such institutions.

You've got that right, Dude! Very sad but also very true.

Jonlaw,

I haven't any problem with paying taxes but I would like them to be fair. A flat tax with zero squirmy deductions or other loopholes is fair IMO.

I was talking about the Social Security/Medicare portion.

No. Not always. Some colleges / universities consider an applicant's ability to pay when making acceptance decisions.

Here's a link discussing GW's decision to use a "need-aware" policy:

GW Need Aware Acceptance Policy


That's why colleges are ranked into categories regarding how sufficient their aid packages are for prospective students with financial needs. Many of the best colleges are in the "full need" category: they meet 100% of that need.


My point is that there are opportunities for the brightest students to go to the best schools despite the sticker price. There are over 50 colleges and universities in the US that have need-blind admissions and cover the full financial needs of their US students. That means if you can get in, you can go. You try to make that sound insignificant, but it's not.

The fact that some high school students don't know this is lamentable, but it doesn't change the fact.