7 ms·

Probably we should just add class and/or socioeconomic status to the Title VII list and mandate that colleges add it in the form of affirmative action. We can t

Probably we should just add class and/or socioeconomic status to the Title VII list and mandate that colleges add it in the form of affirmative action. We can talk around the problem & treat symptoms all we want but fundamentally the Ivy League's purpose is to take the children of the rich and give them the meritocratic legitimation that our society currently requires of its elites. Allowing a small amount of poor kids in is just a part of that meritocratic veneer. We should destroy the entire purpose and rebuild it w/ 20% of its students from the bottom 20%, 20% of its students from the next 20%, and only 1% of its students from the top 1%.

metalliqaz 7y ago
it's a private school, what possible law could be written to force that kind of criteria? Why stop at those levels? How about mandating equal representation of state populations too?
- ssalazar 7y ago
  Eligibility for federal aid, just like every national mandate for collegiate education?
- krastanov 7y ago
  There are plenty of examples of affirmative action policies. Whether they are a good idea can be debated, but writing such a policy is certainly feasible.
krastanov 7y ago
As a partial defense of the Ivies, a substantial part of their admins are trying to do that, and there are signs of progress: admission at most of them is now "need-blind" and they have fantastic financial aid. The much bigger issue is that a student with rich parents would have gone to a better school, and would have had more "opportunities to shine" as a teen, and would not have to had to worry about food/shelter/health. This does make such a kid more prepared for college. There are no easy solutions to that type of inequality (the rich kid that got in is actually smart and deserving). I like the solution you are proposing, but the two of us are probably somewhat extreme.
- mjevans 7y ago
  The most fair solution would probably look a lot like what Harry Potter got at Hogwarts. A student dorm (housing), medical care, and proper meals; all provided by the educational institution (which as a whole was in competition with other institutions). In the HP universe that happened to be paid for by the family estate; in our own reality properly caring for and ensuring that everyone is raised to be an outstanding citizen is both a form of civic infrastructure investment and an insurance policy that helps avoid creating criminals and other negatives for society.
  - krastanov 7y ago
    But (as I attempted to convey above) the Ivies already provide housing/food/health care for free for students that qualify for the need (if the family income is under a reasonable threshold). The problem is that if you are poor, your statistically inferior K12 education puts you at a disadvantage when applying to college. We need a version of your Harry Potter solution to be for the actual Harry Potter age group (K12 education).
    - mjevans 7y ago
      It's late for clarifying, but I was speaking much more broadly; as in through the entire life of a child. Though thinking of it, a new new deal would also help the parents, and a structured environment that has 'secondary parents' to assist with raising a child to common standards for society would be good for everyone. That'd be more like schooling / social support without bounds, possibly a good use of human resources when automation finally eliminates the drudgery jobs.
  - chongli 7y ago
    The only reason Harry got into Hogwarts was because he was born a wizard (likely inherited from his parents). Based on the way he was treated by his peers, I’d argue that he was one of the most privileged students at the school, apart from Malfoy. The only real oppression Harry experienced was the abuse he suffered at the hands of his uncle and aunt. Plenty of rich kids suffer this sort of abuse from relatives. That doesn’t mean they didn’t still have an advantage in college admissions.
kolbe 7y ago
That would be extreme affirmative action, and would undermine myriad efficiencies built into the higher educational system. Schools like Michigan would have some students who are totally illiterate with SAT scores hovering around 800, and some students who've already done upper-division math courses in high school. Intelligent people could no longer be grouped together to help drive each other, and schools like Harvard would need to double their course offerings to accommodate the new, extremely large range of academic capabilities they now have to admit. My opinion: it's not college's job to make up for 18 years of unequal resources building people. The fact is, it takes a miracle for someone raised in a stereotypical inner city life to ever overcome the educational head start a wealthy prep schooler gets. And oftentimes those wealthy parents will put six figures of educational experiences into their kids every year. I'm just not sure where poor people could ever get that kind of assistance to close the gap. That's $5.6T a year. The government doesn't even have the ability to make that happen.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  Private schools could be outlawed. Rich parents who want their children to go to better schools can donate to their city's public education budget. Most of the social problems stemming from capitalism center around the fact that having money gives you and yours disproportionate opportunities for improving your socioeconomic position even more, ad infinitum. Cut out that circular effect wherever possible, and you approach a level playing field.
  - kolbe 7y ago
    So, just play whack-a-mole everything you don't like by making a law? As if just telling the government to outlaw something makes it go away with no other effects. Go ahead and apply some systems thinking to what the unintended consequences of that law would be. If you're really interested in solving problems, you cannot be that lazy and narrow minded.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      There's no need to be rude. History has shown that the making of laws is the only way to curtail the negative side-effects of the free market. I am not a congressman or even a lawyer, so no, as any sane person could infer, I am not proposing that "Private schools are illegal" be written on a piece of paper and submitted to the legislature as a new bill. But I am proposing that weakening the circular mechanisms by which the powerful increase their own power could be a better - indeed, less "lazy and narrow-minded" - strategy for decreasing economic inequality than some other strategies that people propose and even enact. The only two purposes I can think of for having private grade-schools are a) allowing the rich to isolate themselves from the public school system, and b) religious schools. And to be honest - as someone who went to a religious elementary school and learned in my "science class" that evolution is fake and dinosaurs walked alongside humans - the latter probably shouldn't be allowed either.
GuB-42 7y ago
It may feel unfair but the Ivy League system is actually good. There are essentially two kinds of people who enter elite schools: rich kids and very gifted kids. Rich kids don't really need that degree, they already have a guaranteed position thanks to their network and family. They are, however, able to support the school financially and use their network to provide scholarships and good job opportunities to more modest fellow students. You have a 3 part system supporting each other: - The school offers high quality education, recognition, and a suitable environment. - Rich kids and their families support the school financially and offer career opportunities. - Gifted kids provide the raw talent needed for the important positions these schools open. Removing rich kids from the equation won't do any good. They are not parasites, they bring more to the system than they cost. And it's not like they are morons, they don't get a free pass just because they are rich, they still need to pass the tests.
- empath75 7y ago
  Well they’re not parasites to that particular institution, at least economically, but that says nothing about their value to society as a whole.

metalliqaz 7y ago

it's a private school, what possible law could be written to force that kind of criteria? Why stop at those levels? How about mandating equal representation of state populations too?

ssalazar 7y ago
Eligibility for federal aid, just like every national mandate for collegiate education?
krastanov 7y ago
There are plenty of examples of affirmative action policies. Whether they are a good idea can be debated, but writing such a policy is certainly feasible.

krastanov 7y ago

As a partial defense of the Ivies, a substantial part of their admins are trying to do that, and there are signs of progress: admission at most of them is now "need-blind" and they have fantastic financial aid. The much bigger issue is that a student with rich parents would have gone to a better school, and would have had more "opportunities to shine" as a teen, and would not have to had to worry about food/shelter/health. This does make such a kid more prepared for college. There are no easy solutions to that type of inequality (the rich kid that got in is actually smart and deserving). I like the solution you are proposing, but the two of us are probably somewhat extreme.

mjevans 7y ago
The most fair solution would probably look a lot like what Harry Potter got at Hogwarts. A student dorm (housing), medical care, and proper meals; all provided by the educational institution (which as a whole was in competition with other institutions). In the HP universe that happened to be paid for by the family estate; in our own reality properly caring for and ensuring that everyone is raised to be an outstanding citizen is both a form of civic infrastructure investment and an insurance policy that helps avoid creating criminals and other negatives for society.
- krastanov 7y ago
  But (as I attempted to convey above) the Ivies already provide housing/food/health care for free for students that qualify for the need (if the family income is under a reasonable threshold). The problem is that if you are poor, your statistically inferior K12 education puts you at a disadvantage when applying to college. We need a version of your Harry Potter solution to be for the actual Harry Potter age group (K12 education).
  - mjevans 7y ago
    It's late for clarifying, but I was speaking much more broadly; as in through the entire life of a child. Though thinking of it, a new new deal would also help the parents, and a structured environment that has 'secondary parents' to assist with raising a child to common standards for society would be good for everyone. That'd be more like schooling / social support without bounds, possibly a good use of human resources when automation finally eliminates the drudgery jobs.
- chongli 7y ago
  The only reason Harry got into Hogwarts was because he was born a wizard (likely inherited from his parents). Based on the way he was treated by his peers, I’d argue that he was one of the most privileged students at the school, apart from Malfoy. The only real oppression Harry experienced was the abuse he suffered at the hands of his uncle and aunt. Plenty of rich kids suffer this sort of abuse from relatives. That doesn’t mean they didn’t still have an advantage in college admissions.

kolbe 7y ago

That would be extreme affirmative action, and would undermine myriad efficiencies built into the higher educational system. Schools like Michigan would have some students who are totally illiterate with SAT scores hovering around 800, and some students who've already done upper-division math courses in high school. Intelligent people could no longer be grouped together to help drive each other, and schools like Harvard would need to double their course offerings to accommodate the new, extremely large range of academic capabilities they now have to admit. My opinion: it's not college's job to make up for 18 years of unequal resources building people. The fact is, it takes a miracle for someone raised in a stereotypical inner city life to ever overcome the educational head start a wealthy prep schooler gets. And oftentimes those wealthy parents will put six figures of educational experiences into their kids every year. I'm just not sure where poor people could ever get that kind of assistance to close the gap. That's $5.6T a year. The government doesn't even have the ability to make that happen.

_bxg1 7y ago
Private schools could be outlawed. Rich parents who want their children to go to better schools can donate to their city's public education budget. Most of the social problems stemming from capitalism center around the fact that having money gives you and yours disproportionate opportunities for improving your socioeconomic position even more, ad infinitum. Cut out that circular effect wherever possible, and you approach a level playing field.
- kolbe 7y ago
  So, just play whack-a-mole everything you don't like by making a law? As if just telling the government to outlaw something makes it go away with no other effects. Go ahead and apply some systems thinking to what the unintended consequences of that law would be. If you're really interested in solving problems, you cannot be that lazy and narrow minded.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    There's no need to be rude. History has shown that the making of laws is the only way to curtail the negative side-effects of the free market. I am not a congressman or even a lawyer, so no, as any sane person could infer, I am not proposing that "Private schools are illegal" be written on a piece of paper and submitted to the legislature as a new bill. But I am proposing that weakening the circular mechanisms by which the powerful increase their own power could be a better - indeed, less "lazy and narrow-minded" - strategy for decreasing economic inequality than some other strategies that people propose and even enact. The only two purposes I can think of for having private grade-schools are a) allowing the rich to isolate themselves from the public school system, and b) religious schools. And to be honest - as someone who went to a religious elementary school and learned in my "science class" that evolution is fake and dinosaurs walked alongside humans - the latter probably shouldn't be allowed either.

GuB-42 7y ago

It may feel unfair but the Ivy League system is actually good. There are essentially two kinds of people who enter elite schools: rich kids and very gifted kids. Rich kids don't really need that degree, they already have a guaranteed position thanks to their network and family. They are, however, able to support the school financially and use their network to provide scholarships and good job opportunities to more modest fellow students. You have a 3 part system supporting each other: - The school offers high quality education, recognition, and a suitable environment. - Rich kids and their families support the school financially and offer career opportunities. - Gifted kids provide the raw talent needed for the important positions these schools open. Removing rich kids from the equation won't do any good. They are not parasites, they bring more to the system than they cost. And it's not like they are morons, they don't get a free pass just because they are rich, they still need to pass the tests.

empath75 7y ago
Well they’re not parasites to that particular institution, at least economically, but that says nothing about their value to society as a whole.