4 ms·

Poor kids at elite prep schools is what do you think 2% of their enrollment? So 2% is not small, fair enough. And private preparatory schools (much less elite

Poor kids at elite prep schools is what do you think 2% of their enrollment? So 2% is not small, fair enough. And private preparatory schools (much less elite prep schools) educate far less than 1% of the student population in the US. But let's go crazy over the top just to avoid nitpicking and claim it's as much as 1%. 1% * 2% = .02% Explain again why they need special consideration and are statistically legitimate to analyze and make claims regarding?

whymauri 7y ago
Tony Jack makes this pretty clear. Schools are patting themselves on the back for increasing low income and minority enrollment without considering the fact that a large portion of these students is the "privileged poor". As a result, entire school-wide policies are being misguided and failing poor students who did not have an elite-level secondary education. Back-of-the-envelope math (which I don't believe is correct) is not going to invalidate this. Why is this research important? Because it's bringing attention to how universities are failing truly disadvantaged students. Tony is currently shaping discourse about class-relations on campuses around the US, and I don't think the gravity of these discussions should be trivialized simply because these students do not represent a huge population of students. By encouraging schools to fully grasp the extent of the difficulties that doubly disadvantaged students have to overcome, I think we can start moving in a productive direction that empowers poor students beyond elite institutions.
- droithomme 7y ago
  > a large portion of these students is the "privileged poor" Yes I know that is my whole point. A large portion? What does that mean? The number of destitute minority kids going to top elite preparatory schools is an incredibly tiny number, vastly less than a tenth of a percent of students overall, and completely statistically insignificant. Very very few students in the US go to elite prep schools and only a tiny number of those are poor or minority. Claiming that's "a large portion" doesn't seem to be supported by data and is just a gross exaggeration focusing on irrelevant fictions and thus is very unhelpful, counterproductive and disingenuous. Such fictions harm people. On a tangental topic, I do agree that destitute minority kids going to top elite preparatory schools gives them an advantage and that the quality of education at such schools is vastly superior to that of public schools in general. Why is this so given that private school teachers on average are paid less than public school teachers. How is it that public school teachers consistently fail to achieve good results, particularly with disadvantaged and minority students who are massively disadvantaged by public schools but achieve parity with rich white advantaged students both in elite private school and homeschool settings, including homeschool settings with low spending and unqualified parent teachers.
  - cafard 7y ago
    > Why is this so given that private school teachers on average are paid less than public school teachers. If you have the parents behind you, you have a tremendous advantage. If you have a lot of well-educated, prosperous parents behind you, still more, and the effect carries over to some degree to the students whose parents may be less prosperous or educated, but still organized enough to get their kids into the private school.
solveit 7y ago
I don't know about special consideration, but statistically legitimate depends on absolute numbers and not relative. 0.02% of American students would certainly be enough to conduct a statistical analysis on.

whymauri 7y ago

Tony Jack makes this pretty clear. Schools are patting themselves on the back for increasing low income and minority enrollment without considering the fact that a large portion of these students is the "privileged poor". As a result, entire school-wide policies are being misguided and failing poor students who did not have an elite-level secondary education. Back-of-the-envelope math (which I don't believe is correct) is not going to invalidate this. Why is this research important? Because it's bringing attention to how universities are failing truly disadvantaged students. Tony is currently shaping discourse about class-relations on campuses around the US, and I don't think the gravity of these discussions should be trivialized simply because these students do not represent a huge population of students. By encouraging schools to fully grasp the extent of the difficulties that doubly disadvantaged students have to overcome, I think we can start moving in a productive direction that empowers poor students beyond elite institutions.

droithomme 7y ago
> a large portion of these students is the "privileged poor" Yes I know that is my whole point. A large portion? What does that mean? The number of destitute minority kids going to top elite preparatory schools is an incredibly tiny number, vastly less than a tenth of a percent of students overall, and completely statistically insignificant. Very very few students in the US go to elite prep schools and only a tiny number of those are poor or minority. Claiming that's "a large portion" doesn't seem to be supported by data and is just a gross exaggeration focusing on irrelevant fictions and thus is very unhelpful, counterproductive and disingenuous. Such fictions harm people. On a tangental topic, I do agree that destitute minority kids going to top elite preparatory schools gives them an advantage and that the quality of education at such schools is vastly superior to that of public schools in general. Why is this so given that private school teachers on average are paid less than public school teachers. How is it that public school teachers consistently fail to achieve good results, particularly with disadvantaged and minority students who are massively disadvantaged by public schools but achieve parity with rich white advantaged students both in elite private school and homeschool settings, including homeschool settings with low spending and unqualified parent teachers.
- cafard 7y ago
  > Why is this so given that private school teachers on average are paid less than public school teachers. If you have the parents behind you, you have a tremendous advantage. If you have a lot of well-educated, prosperous parents behind you, still more, and the effect carries over to some degree to the students whose parents may be less prosperous or educated, but still organized enough to get their kids into the private school.

solveit 7y ago

I don't know about special consideration, but statistically legitimate depends on absolute numbers and not relative. 0.02% of American students would certainly be enough to conduct a statistical analysis on.