3 ms·

If you're poor and you're not taking advantage of free (and moral) opportunities to better yourself, that might be part of the reason that you're poor to begin

If you're poor and you're not taking advantage of free (and moral) opportunities to better yourself, that might be part of the reason that you're poor to begin with. All you can really do is offer the opportunity; you can't hold someone's hand and force them to take it. Besides, what does an "MIT-caliber mind" need growing up? I would like to think of myself as an MIT-caliber mind (99.5 percentile PSAT/NMSQT, 35 ACT, 1500 SAT), and I didn't have anything special growing up. We qualified for reduced lunches, I worked at least 20 hours a week, played sports, did a lot of work at home (my family completely renovated our first house ourselves (everything from plumbing and electricity to siding), and we also had a dog-breeding business we were starting up), and still did well enough in school to be valedictorian. And before you get the wrong idea, I don't think I'm anything special; I simply have an inquisitive mind that my mother (no college) was smart enough to stimulate at a young age. After that it's just hard work and good habits. The implication that intelligence requires some material object is off mark.

neilk 19y ago
Yes, but did you go to MIT? Or any "name" university? If not, why not? Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have seen lots of insanely smart children whose parents were not rich. But, unfortunately, to get into these top colleges takes more than brains. Nowadays the average MIT freshman has had a lifetime of parents indulging their curiosity and ambitions, prep tests and tutors, and this takes money. Not to mention (in the USA) the expense of living in an area where the schools are good enough. These days, sometimes it's the difference between a microscope or just a textbook. Sometimes it's the difference between a textbook and NO textbook. Many parents risk bankruptcy just to move to a district where their kids get a little better education. Finally, there is the problem of not having connections. A family making less than $75,000 in household income probably doesn't have elite connections -- unless they are a family of academics or artists. Which is why I mentioned that. When I was a kid, just buying a home computer was the equivalent expense of 10% of a laborer's salary. My Dad was able to do that because he was a bit richer, and it changed my life. Today, maybe the couple consisting of a cleaner and a day laborer could buy a decent computer for the whole family -- but their kid is competing against a richer kid that had two or three of their very own, to play with and take apart. If you want to believe in Horatio Alger and that anybody can do anything given enough willpower, fine. But in my opinion, when the children of the rich are often essentially coasting into such schools on a small measure of precocity, it should not require superhuman effort for the poor geniuses to get in. In my ideal world, we'd have something like Swiss policy; ensure that all primary and secondary education is up to snuff, no matter where you live, and kindergarten to Ph.D is free as long as you can make the grade.
- BrandonM 19y ago
  I didn't go to MIT, but I feel I would have gotten in if I had applied. Other factors were more important to me, though, like being the right distance from home (about 3 hours driving) and going to a big enough school that I would be able to take a wide variety of classes and change majors if necessary (I did, three times). I think I also had the (somewhat accurate) feeling that the college I chose would not make all that much difference. We can argue that point all you want, but I'm still quite confident in my future in spite of growing up "poor" and not going to MIT.
yummyfajitas 19y ago
>Besides, what does an "MIT-caliber mind" need growing up? Forget about growing up. At age 17, they need someone to walk them through the college admissions game. Most poor/middle class folks don't have that. When I applied to college, I figured it was grades and SAT's. I didn't have anyone to tell me to engage in activities to fit the admission's office checkboxes (i.e., "leadership experience" or "community service" looks better than "programmer at a .com"). No one told me that "ambitious, will try to graduate college early" doesn't make admissions officers happy. Overall I'm quite happy where I wound up. But admissions coaching would have helped if I were rich enough to have it.

neilk 19y ago

Yes, but did you go to MIT? Or any "name" university? If not, why not? Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have seen lots of insanely smart children whose parents were not rich. But, unfortunately, to get into these top colleges takes more than brains. Nowadays the average MIT freshman has had a lifetime of parents indulging their curiosity and ambitions, prep tests and tutors, and this takes money. Not to mention (in the USA) the expense of living in an area where the schools are good enough. These days, sometimes it's the difference between a microscope or just a textbook. Sometimes it's the difference between a textbook and NO textbook. Many parents risk bankruptcy just to move to a district where their kids get a little better education. Finally, there is the problem of not having connections. A family making less than $75,000 in household income probably doesn't have elite connections -- unless they are a family of academics or artists. Which is why I mentioned that. When I was a kid, just buying a home computer was the equivalent expense of 10% of a laborer's salary. My Dad was able to do that because he was a bit richer, and it changed my life. Today, maybe the couple consisting of a cleaner and a day laborer could buy a decent computer for the whole family -- but their kid is competing against a richer kid that had two or three of their very own, to play with and take apart. If you want to believe in Horatio Alger and that anybody can do anything given enough willpower, fine. But in my opinion, when the children of the rich are often essentially coasting into such schools on a small measure of precocity, it should not require superhuman effort for the poor geniuses to get in. In my ideal world, we'd have something like Swiss policy; ensure that all primary and secondary education is up to snuff, no matter where you live, and kindergarten to Ph.D is free as long as you can make the grade.

BrandonM 19y ago
I didn't go to MIT, but I feel I would have gotten in if I had applied. Other factors were more important to me, though, like being the right distance from home (about 3 hours driving) and going to a big enough school that I would be able to take a wide variety of classes and change majors if necessary (I did, three times). I think I also had the (somewhat accurate) feeling that the college I chose would not make all that much difference. We can argue that point all you want, but I'm still quite confident in my future in spite of growing up "poor" and not going to MIT.

yummyfajitas 19y ago

>Besides, what does an "MIT-caliber mind" need growing up? Forget about growing up. At age 17, they need someone to walk them through the college admissions game. Most poor/middle class folks don't have that. When I applied to college, I figured it was grades and SAT's. I didn't have anyone to tell me to engage in activities to fit the admission's office checkboxes (i.e., "leadership experience" or "community service" looks better than "programmer at a .com"). No one told me that "ambitious, will try to graduate college early" doesn't make admissions officers happy. Overall I'm quite happy where I wound up. But admissions coaching would have helped if I were rich enough to have it.