4 ms·

Cool so when exactly is a student supposed to spend this time to study? I really think HN should stop for a moment and think about how insidious and pervasivel

Cool so when exactly is a student supposed to spend this time to study? I really think HN should stop for a moment and think about how insidious and pervasively poverty creeps into every aspect of a poor child’s life, because some of what’s being written here is embarrassingly naïve.

BobbyJo 4y ago
As someone who grew up super poor, time tends to be one of the only things poor kids have as much of as rich kids. Is that universal? Of course not, but name something better.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  My man, if you were poor and had a lot of free time, someone in your life was being a great person to keep you from that effect of poverty. Not all of us were so lucky.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Again, I'm not saying my experience is universal, just common among myself and my poor friends and cousins. Time seems to me to be the most equitably distributed resource, but I'd love a counter argument that was more than vague disagreement.
    - matai_kolila 4y ago
      Only on the Internet would someone demand a “counterargument” to support the super basic statement “your life experience wasn’t universal amongst poor people”… Fine [0][1][2][3]. Keep in mind this isn’t some “1+1=2” problem, and people have dedicated their lives to figuring this out, so if you’re looking for a “conclusion” then I don’t recommend human psychology. Let me know if you have any questions, but honestly I’m wary of an attempted trolling on your part so please come honestly and with curiosity. Also this is not my area of expertise, and you’ll likely get a better understanding of this very complex issue if you look into this on your own. At best I can be (and frankly am only interested in being) a starting point. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/the-most-powerful-thing-we-could-give-poor-kids-is-completely-free/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/the-m... [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20734446 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20734446 [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2014/10/24/3-ways-to-close-the-play-gap-between-rich-and-poor-kids/?sh=734a645d1233 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2014/10/24/3-ways... [3] https://talkpoverty.org/2017/06/01/matters-poor-kids-dont-time-play/ https://talkpoverty.org/2017/06/01/matters-poor-kids-dont-ti...
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        > Only on the Internet would someone demand a “counterargument” to support the super basic statement “your life experience wasn’t universal amongst poor people”… My argument is not "Poor kids universally have time to do what they want." It's hard for me to believe you are having a good faith conversation, or even read my comments, if this is your opening line. > Fine [0][1][2][3]. Keep in mind this isn’t some “1+1=2” problem, and people have dedicated their lives to figuring this out, so if you’re looking for a “conclusion” then I don’t recommend human psychology. The fact that none of these represent a counter argument, and some actually support my premise, supports the above, you either haven't read my comments at all, or you flavored them in your own mind to such a degree that they no longer represent anything I actually said. I'll restate my point a final time in hopes you'll actually address it: *time is the most equitably distributed resource amongst poor youth. Is it universally so? No. Is it perfectly so? No.* Two of your four links talk about the parents' time (either time with their children or otherwise) and the last two talk about time for recess. I fail to see how either of these represent less time for high school students, the kind who take the SAT, to study for the SAT. Had you provided links that showed that kids in poverty have less time to study than their rich counterparts by some non-trivial margin, that'd be relevant, but all of your links just point out other places in poor kids lives that they are disadvantaged (less parental supervision, less childhood vocabulary, less childhood free social time, etc.), which are all definitely problems, but I fail to see where college administrators can use those to inform admissions in any meaningfully objective way.
        matai_kolila 4y ago
        > Had you provided links that showed that kids in poverty have less time to study than their rich counterparts by some non-trivial margin, that'd be relevant, but all of your links just point out other places in poor kids lives that they are disadvantaged (less parental supervision, less childhood vocabulary, less childhood free social time, etc.), which are all definitely problems, but I fail to see where college administrators can use those to inform admissions in any meaningfully objective way. If you can’t see how a leads to b, there are no words I can write here to convince you of anything, about anything. I can’t make connections for you, you need to figure this out for yourself, which is why I never expected you to do anything but stick to your “let’s have an Internet argument about an obvious fact” strategy.
  - lupire 4y ago
    Please say what you are trying to communicate. That poor kids are working full time jobs? That's not true.
- patrick451 4y ago
  I agree. Sure, holding a part time job in high school cut into study time, but a lot of that was balanced out by not being to afford a bunch of time consuming extracurricular activities.
- jjav 4y ago
  > time tends to be one of the only things poor kids have as much of as rich kids In a poor family, the kids are likely working a part-time job before going to school and then another part-time job (or two) after school. There's not much free time. They might also be the caretaker for younger siblings since their parents are also working three full time jobs so they never see them.
zdragnar 4y ago
They'll certainly have more time to study than they will for extracurricular activities, social clubs, volunteering and all of the other "soft" ways kids pad out their college applications. In terms of fairness across racial and economic strata, standardized tests like the ACT and SAT are the fairest ways to judge college applications.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  ACT and SAT measure free time as much as they measure anything else, which overall is exceptionally little. And I would very much love to live in a world where the sum total possible things a child has to worry about are extracurriculars or studying. Good lord what a better place we’d live in if that were true…
  - sn9 4y ago
    This seems contradictory given many of the "top" students who fill up the top universities frequently have both really good scores as well as incredible amounts of extracurriculars. You'd expect there to be a tension if ACT/SAT scores measured free time.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Second this. I didn't have the money for required uniforms, and no health insurance, so sports/band/several other potential ways I could look good on a college app, were basically off the table for me.
rayiner 4y ago
Somehow poor immigrant kids in NYC find time to study.

BobbyJo 4y ago

As someone who grew up super poor, time tends to be one of the only things poor kids have as much of as rich kids. Is that universal? Of course not, but name something better.

matai_kolila 4y ago
My man, if you were poor and had a lot of free time, someone in your life was being a great person to keep you from that effect of poverty. Not all of us were so lucky.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  Again, I'm not saying my experience is universal, just common among myself and my poor friends and cousins. Time seems to me to be the most equitably distributed resource, but I'd love a counter argument that was more than vague disagreement.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    Only on the Internet would someone demand a “counterargument” to support the super basic statement “your life experience wasn’t universal amongst poor people”… Fine [0][1][2][3]. Keep in mind this isn’t some “1+1=2” problem, and people have dedicated their lives to figuring this out, so if you’re looking for a “conclusion” then I don’t recommend human psychology. Let me know if you have any questions, but honestly I’m wary of an attempted trolling on your part so please come honestly and with curiosity. Also this is not my area of expertise, and you’ll likely get a better understanding of this very complex issue if you look into this on your own. At best I can be (and frankly am only interested in being) a starting point. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/the-most-powerful-thing-we-could-give-poor-kids-is-completely-free/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/the-m... [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20734446 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20734446 [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2014/10/24/3-ways-to-close-the-play-gap-between-rich-and-poor-kids/?sh=734a645d1233 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2014/10/24/3-ways... [3] https://talkpoverty.org/2017/06/01/matters-poor-kids-dont-time-play/ https://talkpoverty.org/2017/06/01/matters-poor-kids-dont-ti...
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      > Only on the Internet would someone demand a “counterargument” to support the super basic statement “your life experience wasn’t universal amongst poor people”… My argument is not "Poor kids universally have time to do what they want." It's hard for me to believe you are having a good faith conversation, or even read my comments, if this is your opening line. > Fine [0][1][2][3]. Keep in mind this isn’t some “1+1=2” problem, and people have dedicated their lives to figuring this out, so if you’re looking for a “conclusion” then I don’t recommend human psychology. The fact that none of these represent a counter argument, and some actually support my premise, supports the above, you either haven't read my comments at all, or you flavored them in your own mind to such a degree that they no longer represent anything I actually said. I'll restate my point a final time in hopes you'll actually address it: *time is the most equitably distributed resource amongst poor youth. Is it universally so? No. Is it perfectly so? No.* Two of your four links talk about the parents' time (either time with their children or otherwise) and the last two talk about time for recess. I fail to see how either of these represent less time for high school students, the kind who take the SAT, to study for the SAT. Had you provided links that showed that kids in poverty have less time to study than their rich counterparts by some non-trivial margin, that'd be relevant, but all of your links just point out other places in poor kids lives that they are disadvantaged (less parental supervision, less childhood vocabulary, less childhood free social time, etc.), which are all definitely problems, but I fail to see where college administrators can use those to inform admissions in any meaningfully objective way.
      - matai_kolila 4y ago
        > Had you provided links that showed that kids in poverty have less time to study than their rich counterparts by some non-trivial margin, that'd be relevant, but all of your links just point out other places in poor kids lives that they are disadvantaged (less parental supervision, less childhood vocabulary, less childhood free social time, etc.), which are all definitely problems, but I fail to see where college administrators can use those to inform admissions in any meaningfully objective way. If you can’t see how a leads to b, there are no words I can write here to convince you of anything, about anything. I can’t make connections for you, you need to figure this out for yourself, which is why I never expected you to do anything but stick to your “let’s have an Internet argument about an obvious fact” strategy.
- lupire 4y ago
  Please say what you are trying to communicate. That poor kids are working full time jobs? That's not true.
patrick451 4y ago
I agree. Sure, holding a part time job in high school cut into study time, but a lot of that was balanced out by not being to afford a bunch of time consuming extracurricular activities.
jjav 4y ago
> time tends to be one of the only things poor kids have as much of as rich kids In a poor family, the kids are likely working a part-time job before going to school and then another part-time job (or two) after school. There's not much free time. They might also be the caretaker for younger siblings since their parents are also working three full time jobs so they never see them.

zdragnar 4y ago

They'll certainly have more time to study than they will for extracurricular activities, social clubs, volunteering and all of the other "soft" ways kids pad out their college applications. In terms of fairness across racial and economic strata, standardized tests like the ACT and SAT are the fairest ways to judge college applications.

matai_kolila 4y ago
ACT and SAT measure free time as much as they measure anything else, which overall is exceptionally little. And I would very much love to live in a world where the sum total possible things a child has to worry about are extracurriculars or studying. Good lord what a better place we’d live in if that were true…
- sn9 4y ago
  This seems contradictory given many of the "top" students who fill up the top universities frequently have both really good scores as well as incredible amounts of extracurriculars. You'd expect there to be a tension if ACT/SAT scores measured free time.
BobbyJo 4y ago
Second this. I didn't have the money for required uniforms, and no health insurance, so sports/band/several other potential ways I could look good on a college app, were basically off the table for me.

rayiner 4y ago

Somehow poor immigrant kids in NYC find time to study.