7 ms·

The "dumb|lazy rich kid" stereotype is very old and no doubt has some basis, but in the few rich families I've known, the kids were pushed extremely hard to ach

by wrp 3y ago

The "dumb|lazy rich kid" stereotype is very old and no doubt has some basis, but in the few rich families I've known, the kids were pushed extremely hard to achieve academically.

BoorishBears 3y ago
This doesn't counter the stereotype much, if you take two dumb/lazy kids and stick one in a middle class household offering the necessities, then take the other and stick them in a 1% household that can afford tutors and private schools and supporting year-round extracurriculars, who's going to do better? Both households can try to "push hard" but what the rich household can do for a child is a strict superset of what the middle class one can.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Sure, but isn’t the purpose of college to educate the most qualified students? If they are actually better academically, why does it matter how they got to be that way? It is corrupt if they aren’t actually good academically and yet still get in to whatever school above more qualified students.
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    No, the purpose of academia is to enable an educated society. If we let things fall into a reinforcement loop the result is a bimodally educated society: from there does the intelligentsia then go and rule over the rubble?
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      I mean, if people from the same families are actually consistently more qualified than the commoners over long spans of time, then sure, let’s have an aristocracy, why not? The root problem with aristocracy isn’t that it is forbidden for some sacred moral reason, it’s that it functionally doesn’t work well. Differentiation based on traits is not stable across many generations, and the commoners will always eventually generate individuals who are better along whatever dimensions than the aristocracy does. I don’t think we have to worry about this problem, so long as we prevent the actual corruption. If we are really looking at merit, the families will cycle out after a few generations (again, we do have to prevent the actual corruption).
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? You answered that: > it functionally doesn’t work well. We're not talking about taking the dregs of society and throwing them into ivy league schools: we're talking about people who didn't have 4 years of debate team and lacrosse and water polo but still managed to do quite well for themselves. It creates a better environment for everyone involved, since like you noted, creating an aristocracy has traditionally not worked out for either side of the coin.
        pfannkuchen 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? /s (if that wasn’t obvious) My point is that letting in applicants by (aspirational) merit does not create an aristocracy, even if some of the high performing applicants are wealthy. Aristocracy is created through corruption of (aspirational) meritocracy, because you need some non-(aspirationally-)meritocratic force to hold the same families in place generation after generation. They won’t continue to perform well forever. If they did perform well forever (again, they don’t), then aristocracy would be a more workable system than it is.
        BoorishBears 3y ago
        Except there is a non-meritocratic force involved. These schools judge on extracirriculars for example: - low-income families are 3x more likely to have problems with their cost: https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_PayToParticipate.pdf https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_Pa... - many programs and activities that stand out aren't likely to be offered in poorer school districts - the time outside of school hours they take has a cost: it can be in terms of needing additional transportation, or changing childcare plans for example. College applications don't measure aspiration, they measure proxies for aspiration we've long known are flawed and heavily affected by wealth. Honestly it's telling that affirmative action was struck down which in turn is threatening legacy applications, and not the other way around, when it's well known historical fact legacy applications started out as a way to keep out immigrants: at the end of the day these schools have been putting their endowments ahead of what benefits society, and that's not really how things should work.
    - cman1444 3y ago
      I would argue that this isn't a failure of academia. Tertiary education is supposed to be for the most qualified candidates. This is a failure of K-12 public educational systems for not preparing students as well as high income families can.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Are they better academically? Or do we assume they are because they went to a better school? A lot of Ivy League school entries are "legacy" which means a parent went there. Remember if you let in a minimum number of something that means you wouldn't have without a limit. Legacy students aren't more gifted academically or they could get in as part of the academic pipeline, right?
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      I believe GP was complaining that rich people can also make their kids actually more qualified through better, more expensive schooling, not that colleges are letting them in when they are actually under qualified. I agree that legacy admissions should be abolished yesterday.
      - Guvante 3y ago
        Yes but the implication didn't quote anything to back it up as being correct. While certainly it has been shown that students with better upbringing perform better on such things the amount of that is way less than the difference in students. Thus it isn't as simple as "those who are given all the tools do better" there is also an aspect of something else. After all "they are just better students" would imply only a similar increase in application acceptance. The is a large trend of "overrepresented groups are just better" again and I prefer to push back on "I don't have evidence of why else there is overrepresentation so obviously it is fair"... Especially when Legacy is literally the opposite of fair.
tapatio 3y ago
How were they pushed extremely hard? Private tutors? What else?
- wrp 3y ago
  You are thinking about it backwards. It's not a matter of what was done for the kids, but what was expected of them. Parents would not tolerate low effort. Also, I didn't know any who employed private tutors, but they did arrange to send their kids to the best schools within reach.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    They had tutors. I think tutors aren't necessarily that out of reach, but I know lots of people don't have money for that. They may not have had teams of tutors, one for each subject, but I guarantee you that they worked with people at some point in their academic careers.
    - wrp 3y ago
      I don't understand this obsession with tutors. If the kids have good teachers at a school with high standards, the only time for tutors is if the kids need remedial help. I'm speculating this focus on tutors comes from the belief that rich kids can achieve at higher levels only because they are getting something extra. I think there is also an underestimation of how much more demanding the better schools are.
ahzhou 3y ago
I’ve known both. Some kids have a huge chip on their shoulder to carry the family legacy or exceed their parents, while some were happy to coast on their trust fund. I think the biggest difference is that kids without family money don’t have the option to coast.

by wrp 3y ago

The "dumb|lazy rich kid" stereotype is very old and no doubt has some basis, but in the few rich families I've known, the kids were pushed extremely hard to achieve academically.

BoorishBears 3y ago

This doesn't counter the stereotype much, if you take two dumb/lazy kids and stick one in a middle class household offering the necessities, then take the other and stick them in a 1% household that can afford tutors and private schools and supporting year-round extracurriculars, who's going to do better? Both households can try to "push hard" but what the rich household can do for a child is a strict superset of what the middle class one can.

pfannkuchen 3y ago
Sure, but isn’t the purpose of college to educate the most qualified students? If they are actually better academically, why does it matter how they got to be that way? It is corrupt if they aren’t actually good academically and yet still get in to whatever school above more qualified students.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  No, the purpose of academia is to enable an educated society. If we let things fall into a reinforcement loop the result is a bimodally educated society: from there does the intelligentsia then go and rule over the rubble?
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I mean, if people from the same families are actually consistently more qualified than the commoners over long spans of time, then sure, let’s have an aristocracy, why not? The root problem with aristocracy isn’t that it is forbidden for some sacred moral reason, it’s that it functionally doesn’t work well. Differentiation based on traits is not stable across many generations, and the commoners will always eventually generate individuals who are better along whatever dimensions than the aristocracy does. I don’t think we have to worry about this problem, so long as we prevent the actual corruption. If we are really looking at merit, the families will cycle out after a few generations (again, we do have to prevent the actual corruption).
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? You answered that: > it functionally doesn’t work well. We're not talking about taking the dregs of society and throwing them into ivy league schools: we're talking about people who didn't have 4 years of debate team and lacrosse and water polo but still managed to do quite well for themselves. It creates a better environment for everyone involved, since like you noted, creating an aristocracy has traditionally not worked out for either side of the coin.
      - pfannkuchen 3y ago
        > let’s have an aristocracy, why not? /s (if that wasn’t obvious) My point is that letting in applicants by (aspirational) merit does not create an aristocracy, even if some of the high performing applicants are wealthy. Aristocracy is created through corruption of (aspirational) meritocracy, because you need some non-(aspirationally-)meritocratic force to hold the same families in place generation after generation. They won’t continue to perform well forever. If they did perform well forever (again, they don’t), then aristocracy would be a more workable system than it is.
        BoorishBears 3y ago
        Except there is a non-meritocratic force involved. These schools judge on extracirriculars for example: - low-income families are 3x more likely to have problems with their cost: https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_PayToParticipate.pdf https://mottpoll.org/sites/default/files/documents/031819_Pa... - many programs and activities that stand out aren't likely to be offered in poorer school districts - the time outside of school hours they take has a cost: it can be in terms of needing additional transportation, or changing childcare plans for example. College applications don't measure aspiration, they measure proxies for aspiration we've long known are flawed and heavily affected by wealth. Honestly it's telling that affirmative action was struck down which in turn is threatening legacy applications, and not the other way around, when it's well known historical fact legacy applications started out as a way to keep out immigrants: at the end of the day these schools have been putting their endowments ahead of what benefits society, and that's not really how things should work.
  - cman1444 3y ago
    I would argue that this isn't a failure of academia. Tertiary education is supposed to be for the most qualified candidates. This is a failure of K-12 public educational systems for not preparing students as well as high income families can.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Are they better academically? Or do we assume they are because they went to a better school? A lot of Ivy League school entries are "legacy" which means a parent went there. Remember if you let in a minimum number of something that means you wouldn't have without a limit. Legacy students aren't more gifted academically or they could get in as part of the academic pipeline, right?
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I believe GP was complaining that rich people can also make their kids actually more qualified through better, more expensive schooling, not that colleges are letting them in when they are actually under qualified. I agree that legacy admissions should be abolished yesterday.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      Yes but the implication didn't quote anything to back it up as being correct. While certainly it has been shown that students with better upbringing perform better on such things the amount of that is way less than the difference in students. Thus it isn't as simple as "those who are given all the tools do better" there is also an aspect of something else. After all "they are just better students" would imply only a similar increase in application acceptance. The is a large trend of "overrepresented groups are just better" again and I prefer to push back on "I don't have evidence of why else there is overrepresentation so obviously it is fair"... Especially when Legacy is literally the opposite of fair.

tapatio 3y ago

How were they pushed extremely hard? Private tutors? What else?

wrp 3y ago
You are thinking about it backwards. It's not a matter of what was done for the kids, but what was expected of them. Parents would not tolerate low effort. Also, I didn't know any who employed private tutors, but they did arrange to send their kids to the best schools within reach.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  They had tutors. I think tutors aren't necessarily that out of reach, but I know lots of people don't have money for that. They may not have had teams of tutors, one for each subject, but I guarantee you that they worked with people at some point in their academic careers.
  - wrp 3y ago
    I don't understand this obsession with tutors. If the kids have good teachers at a school with high standards, the only time for tutors is if the kids need remedial help. I'm speculating this focus on tutors comes from the belief that rich kids can achieve at higher levels only because they are getting something extra. I think there is also an underestimation of how much more demanding the better schools are.

ahzhou 3y ago

I’ve known both. Some kids have a huge chip on their shoulder to carry the family legacy or exceed their parents, while some were happy to coast on their trust fund. I think the biggest difference is that kids without family money don’t have the option to coast.