14 ms·

The blindness of privilege: > I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. It's commendable that OP di

The blindness of privilege: > I paid for 90% of tuition/housing/living expenses by programming computers beginning in high school. It's commendable that OP did this - that's great and plenty of people have squandered their gifts unlike him. However, just because funding is available doesn't mean people aren't at a disadvantage due to their situation. Does OP really believe that you're on equal ground if you: - Live in a ghetto, often with an stressed-out, overworked single Mom. - Go to a shit school without adequate fucking literacy education - let alone programming classes. - Have no family / friends who have professional jobs. - Often fear for your physical and financial safety. - You don't have a computer / internet at home. This breads a very difficult kind of scarcity to dig yourself out of, and we need programs to help these kids get out. Cash is great, but not sufficient.

drakonandor 10y ago
Does this article really concern people without 'adequate literacy'? They are not at a level they have to worry about university costs. (Of course, their schools should be improved)
davidf18 10y ago
While my HS did have a course in computer programming taught by a very good teacher, a computer scientist, I learned to program before then. These days one can purchase a Chromebook for about $200 to $300 and put Linux on that and program open source. I know someone who has a nice Mac, but actually I see him mostly with his 13" Chromebook programming C++ on Linux. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=chromebook https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3... Much of the issues mentioned are true of anyone that wants to go to college. But the article to me was about paying for college and ironically, the poor have more opportunities than the not so poor because of the Pell Grants and Stafford Loans. At any rate, in NYC, I see students who were immigrants from disadvantaged backgrounds getting a top education at CUNY (and there are other low-cost schools in NYC).
- soundwave106 10y ago
  It's not just cash and computing devices we are talking about. It's home environment. Home environment is a huge factor on education success. My mother and sister both do some one on one tutoring of kindergarten age economically disadvantaged children. They've told me about the kids that come in that you can tell are very bright. But due to some of the factors like described in the previous post (eg the stressed out single mom who is always working and has less time to do things like reading with their kids etc., the less safe environment, or even just parents that for whatever reason don't know how to engage in that way), many times they still often come in significantly behind. Which makes sense. If your family actively engages their children in learning from the start, you're going to be better prepared. Is it possible to overcome that? Yes, but not by simply throwing a Chromebook at them. The good news for instance is that this type of volunteer-led tutoring seems to work very decently at closing some of the gap (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/can-volunteers-help-kids-read-more-proficiently-new-research-says-yes/2015/03/28/7141c57c-c4ec-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/can-volunteer...). So I think it's going to take more or less solutions in that direction.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    I understanding what you are referring to but the point of the article was asking if people who come with low economic background are shut out of science research and the answer is no. True, there are some people with an unfortunate backgrounds in this country and every country, and it is great that people are helping them, but there are many who have little money including the immigrants that I mentioned, but those who are not immigrants as well and they are able to get science and engineering degrees at quality schools thanks to relatively low tuitions, and grants and government-based low-interest loans. The Nature story is decidedly sensationalistic or the writer(s) didn't do their research. I think they should come to NYC and interview the students at CUNY and other NYC public colleges. Most of these students come from families without resources.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
The OP's point is that funding is not the issue. You are correct to note that the real problem is that the poor are more likely to be bad people in general, and that they will drag down other poor folks. Poor people are likely to be bad parents (as you note) and are far more likely than non-poor people to engage in violence against friends, relatives and neighbors. No one disputes this. The point is that it's not economics keeping people from the sciences. (Here's some numbers on violence among poor people as compared to non-poor people: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf )
- rmxt 10y ago
  Does poverty create "bad people" or do "bad people" end up in poverty? That seems like a question that you would need answered before you can assert that "it's not economics keeping people from the sciences."
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    That's easily answerable. First, we can look at the past or other countries. Either the US 1950's or the top 10% of India consists of people who live in what we call "poverty" in 2016 USA. Second, we can take good people, drop them into poverty, and watch what happens. For example, take an upper middle class 22 year old, drop them into the poverty of graduate school, and check whether they go bad. Both of these are ways of letting the people vary, but holding the economic stimulus constant. From what I've seen, both groups are extremely reluctant to engage in violence. When I was in grad school, even the 10'th year graduate students ("lifers") did not start robbing people or beating their wives! Also, very interestingly, both groups rarely stay poor for long when placed in the US.
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      Grad students have job security, health insurance, physical security, and good job prospects upon graduation. It's not really a fair comparison to, say, a part time minimum wage job at home depot, even if the take-home pay is similar. The tax ramifications of graduate school are usually pretty good too, so the money goes further than the salary numbers would indicate. There's also a big difference between being low paid in a generally high paid cultural group vs being in a generally low paid cultural group, in terms of social safety net and psychological climate.
zo1 10y ago
You can't easily fix a broken culture from the outside. All people need to be treated equally, above all else, including race, gender, beliefs, and economic status (yes). I simply think it is unfair to nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done. By claiming that their position in life is a product of "privilege" or their parent's privilege, and simply giving those that did not do said hard work a free pass and cash. Those are the beliefs, uncomfortable or not, and as is often the case with this type of topic, they are the products of a fundamentally different view of the world. I am not here to fix cosmic injustices using further injustice, nor do I want my tax money going towards it either.
- rmxt 10y ago
  Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people up to par in literacy, before encouraging development in the sciences) in impoverished areas "nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done"? There's no logical connection there, nor any sort of free pass being offered. Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations. Quick Google searches suggest that escaping poverty with children would actually require working more than 40-hours a week. Seems like a catch-22 for trying to achieve financial, familial and educational success. [1] [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-employees-must-work-50-hours-a-week-to-escape-poverty-oecd-says/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-e...
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know? Would you also require a citation that proves Trump is a Republican, or that rich people don't commit much violent crime?
eanzenberg 10y ago
I'd rather spend the cash on the gifted students. Probably better return on investment.

drakonandor 10y ago

Does this article really concern people without 'adequate literacy'? They are not at a level they have to worry about university costs. (Of course, their schools should be improved)

davidf18 10y ago

While my HS did have a course in computer programming taught by a very good teacher, a computer scientist, I learned to program before then. These days one can purchase a Chromebook for about $200 to $300 and put Linux on that and program open source. I know someone who has a nice Mac, but actually I see him mostly with his 13" Chromebook programming C++ on Linux. https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=chromebook https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3... Much of the issues mentioned are true of anyone that wants to go to college. But the article to me was about paying for college and ironically, the poor have more opportunities than the not so poor because of the Pell Grants and Stafford Loans. At any rate, in NYC, I see students who were immigrants from disadvantaged backgrounds getting a top education at CUNY (and there are other low-cost schools in NYC).

soundwave106 10y ago
It's not just cash and computing devices we are talking about. It's home environment. Home environment is a huge factor on education success. My mother and sister both do some one on one tutoring of kindergarten age economically disadvantaged children. They've told me about the kids that come in that you can tell are very bright. But due to some of the factors like described in the previous post (eg the stressed out single mom who is always working and has less time to do things like reading with their kids etc., the less safe environment, or even just parents that for whatever reason don't know how to engage in that way), many times they still often come in significantly behind. Which makes sense. If your family actively engages their children in learning from the start, you're going to be better prepared. Is it possible to overcome that? Yes, but not by simply throwing a Chromebook at them. The good news for instance is that this type of volunteer-led tutoring seems to work very decently at closing some of the gap (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/can-volunteers-help-kids-read-more-proficiently-new-research-says-yes/2015/03/28/7141c57c-c4ec-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/can-volunteer...). So I think it's going to take more or less solutions in that direction.
- davidf18 10y ago
  I understanding what you are referring to but the point of the article was asking if people who come with low economic background are shut out of science research and the answer is no. True, there are some people with an unfortunate backgrounds in this country and every country, and it is great that people are helping them, but there are many who have little money including the immigrants that I mentioned, but those who are not immigrants as well and they are able to get science and engineering degrees at quality schools thanks to relatively low tuitions, and grants and government-based low-interest loans. The Nature story is decidedly sensationalistic or the writer(s) didn't do their research. I think they should come to NYC and interview the students at CUNY and other NYC public colleges. Most of these students come from families without resources.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

The OP's point is that funding is not the issue. You are correct to note that the real problem is that the poor are more likely to be bad people in general, and that they will drag down other poor folks. Poor people are likely to be bad parents (as you note) and are far more likely than non-poor people to engage in violence against friends, relatives and neighbors. No one disputes this. The point is that it's not economics keeping people from the sciences. (Here's some numbers on violence among poor people as compared to non-poor people: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf )

rmxt 10y ago
Does poverty create "bad people" or do "bad people" end up in poverty? That seems like a question that you would need answered before you can assert that "it's not economics keeping people from the sciences."
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  That's easily answerable. First, we can look at the past or other countries. Either the US 1950's or the top 10% of India consists of people who live in what we call "poverty" in 2016 USA. Second, we can take good people, drop them into poverty, and watch what happens. For example, take an upper middle class 22 year old, drop them into the poverty of graduate school, and check whether they go bad. Both of these are ways of letting the people vary, but holding the economic stimulus constant. From what I've seen, both groups are extremely reluctant to engage in violence. When I was in grad school, even the 10'th year graduate students ("lifers") did not start robbing people or beating their wives! Also, very interestingly, both groups rarely stay poor for long when placed in the US.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    Grad students have job security, health insurance, physical security, and good job prospects upon graduation. It's not really a fair comparison to, say, a part time minimum wage job at home depot, even if the take-home pay is similar. The tax ramifications of graduate school are usually pretty good too, so the money goes further than the salary numbers would indicate. There's also a big difference between being low paid in a generally high paid cultural group vs being in a generally low paid cultural group, in terms of social safety net and psychological climate.

zo1 10y ago

You can't easily fix a broken culture from the outside. All people need to be treated equally, above all else, including race, gender, beliefs, and economic status (yes). I simply think it is unfair to nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done. By claiming that their position in life is a product of "privilege" or their parent's privilege, and simply giving those that did not do said hard work a free pass and cash. Those are the beliefs, uncomfortable or not, and as is often the case with this type of topic, they are the products of a fundamentally different view of the world. I am not here to fix cosmic injustices using further injustice, nor do I want my tax money going towards it either.

rmxt 10y ago
Putting your ideological motivations aside, how do programs promoting home computer ownership or basic literacy (with the ultimate aim of getting people up to par in literacy, before encouraging development in the sciences) in impoverished areas "nullify and demean the good work that hard-working individuals have done"? There's no logical connection there, nor any sort of free pass being offered. Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations. Quick Google searches suggest that escaping poverty with children would actually require working more than 40-hours a week. Seems like a catch-22 for trying to achieve financial, familial and educational success. [1] [1] http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-employees-must-work-50-hours-a-week-to-escape-poverty-oecd-says/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/06/u-s-minimum-wage-e...
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Furthermore, the implication that people in poverty are any less "hard-working" than those that have achieved financial success/accessibility to the sciences seems like a claim that needs some citations 60% of poor adults (age 18-64) don't work at all. In contrast, 81% of non-poor adults do. 58% of non-poor adults worked full time year round, whereas only 11% of poor adults did. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publication... Table 3 on page 21. Why is this a remotely controversial claim, as opposed to simply standard knowledge that all educated people know? Would you also require a citation that proves Trump is a Republican, or that rich people don't commit much violent crime?

eanzenberg 10y ago

I'd rather spend the cash on the gifted students. Probably better return on investment.