4 ms·

The paucity of students from poor and working-class backgrounds at the nation's selective colleges should be a national scandal. If you solve this problem, one

The paucity of students from poor and working-class backgrounds at the nation's selective colleges should be a national scandal. If you solve this problem, one generation later you have re-created it, as the children of previously poor families have gained the wealth associated with Harvard diplomas. The truth is--the problem such as it is, genuinely existed through almost all of history up until the middle of the 20th century. The problem was solved, and It's all but gone now. The poor are largely poor because of themselves and not circumstances. Where exceptions to this exist, they will be quickly eradicated by individuals who partake the widely available financial aid for college.

yters 19y ago
I think the author makes a good point about criteria that are most easily fulfilled by the privileged.
robg 19y ago
I can't disagree more. Social mobility exists but poverty is nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest. And the income gap appears to only be getting worse. The median household income is somewhere around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage) and save for their education on that. And the financial aid you point to is usually loans that are paid off over a decade - add that cost to the next generation. Selection could always be biased to uplift rather than simply advance. The debate has been dominated by racial inequities. By addressing socioeconomic discrepancies in education across the color spectrum it's possible to redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos generation after generation. Problem is, those differences are exacerbated by local school districts and so the best hope of focused change is through college. But fewer than 50% of the American populace goes on to attend. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...
- mynameishere 19y ago
  nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now. And the income gap appears to only be getting worse This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise. around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage) and save for their education on that Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me. it's possible to redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos generation after generation If that is your goal by itself, then a good mugging will do the job with much, much less in the way of administrative costs than redistributing money through a school system or some other structure. At any rate, the prices for schools are strictly nominal and are invariably lower for low-income students. This is just how schools segment the marketplace, and the fallacious sticker-price of schooling shouldn't distort one's view of society. But fewer than 50% of the American populace goes on to attend And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes.
  - pg 19y ago
    There is no absolute standard of wealth. It's true though that nearly everyone 100 years ago was poor by present standards.
  - robg 19y ago
    "Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now." Depends on what your standards are. Me, I think we can do much better at redistributing wealth. And that need not be in the form of social programs but simply in more level playing fields. "This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise." I don't see your point. The poor are staying poor while the rich are getting richer, relative to today's standards. That's a fact. "Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me." When you were growing up twenty years ago (or so) this median was much lower. And you merely want people to "survive"? I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society. Where it might be less true for the US today, poverty still runs rampant. To take it to an extreme in today's world, how would you feel about carrying your daily water 3 miles (even as I've seen kids do so with the biggest smile you'll ever see)? Those folks might "survive" (for thirty or forty years) but humanity can do much, much, better. "If that is your goal by itself..." Take a moment to look at reading and writing scores in impoverished areas. Whereas our government assures a free education it is far from equal. That's really all I care about. The achievement gap is real and will be because wealthier kids get to school already better prepared. Further, they live in neighborhoods where the differences cascade. Fixing divergent school districts is a very hard problem so I see the best hope at the college level, so long as the opportunities are there (i.e. the point of this op-ed). "And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes." That's a different argument (and one where we are probably on the same side). The point, for me, is equal opportunities. And too many start off too far behind. Just because one person can fight the tide, doesn't mean everyone has that capacity or the support necessary.
davidw 19y ago
> The poor are largely poor because of themselves and not circumstances. Be that true or not, their children still ought to have a shot at a better life.
mattm 19y ago
I lived in Kenya for a few months and I find now that I have little sympathy for the "poor" in western countries. The "poor" here have access to free libraries where they could learn pretty much whatever they want. They can access the Internet for free. They can get a $10 an hour job at a fast food restaurant to pay the bills. Yes, it's not glamorous but it's a start. The resources are out there if they want to find them. When you've seen child of 6 years old who probably does not have parents, who is living on the streets and who is drugged up on sniffing glue, poverty takes on a whole new meaning. Real poverty is not being able to afford food or shelter, not not being able to afford university education or cable TV.

yters 19y ago

I think the author makes a good point about criteria that are most easily fulfilled by the privileged.

robg 19y ago

I can't disagree more. Social mobility exists but poverty is nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest. And the income gap appears to only be getting worse. The median household income is somewhere around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage) and save for their education on that. And the financial aid you point to is usually loans that are paid off over a decade - add that cost to the next generation. Selection could always be biased to uplift rather than simply advance. The debate has been dominated by racial inequities. By addressing socioeconomic discrepancies in education across the color spectrum it's possible to redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos generation after generation. Problem is, those differences are exacerbated by local school districts and so the best hope of focused change is through college. But fewer than 50% of the American populace goes on to attend. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_...

mynameishere 19y ago
nowhere as easy to escape nor self-created nor eradicated as you suggest Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now. And the income gap appears to only be getting worse This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise. around 50k. Good luck trying to raise a family (food, car, rent/mortgage) and save for their education on that Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me. it's possible to redistribute wealth through a Horatio Alger ethos generation after generation If that is your goal by itself, then a good mugging will do the job with much, much less in the way of administrative costs than redistributing money through a school system or some other structure. At any rate, the prices for schools are strictly nominal and are invariably lower for low-income students. This is just how schools segment the marketplace, and the fallacious sticker-price of schooling shouldn't distort one's view of society. But fewer than 50% of the American populace goes on to attend And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes.
- pg 19y ago
  There is no absolute standard of wealth. It's true though that nearly everyone 100 years ago was poor by present standards.
- robg 19y ago
  "Um, yes it is. 100 years ago almost everyone was "poor" by absolute standards. Today, almost no one is. Poverty has been all-but eradicated and it's something you almost have to aim for now." Depends on what your standards are. Me, I think we can do much better at redistributing wealth. And that need not be in the form of social programs but simply in more level playing fields. "This is a make-believe problem. If I get a raise, the income gap has just increased (or decreased, depending). Whichever might occur doesn't change the basic advantage of getting a raise." I don't see your point. The poor are staying poor while the rich are getting richer, relative to today's standards. That's a fact. "Um, let's see...90 percent of the people I new growing up (actually much less than 50K), including my family, would fall in this category. So, you may have a very pampered sense of what is required to survive in this world, because it's totally foreign to me." When you were growing up twenty years ago (or so) this median was much lower. And you merely want people to "survive"? I want everyone to have the opportunity to thrive while advancing society. Where it might be less true for the US today, poverty still runs rampant. To take it to an extreme in today's world, how would you feel about carrying your daily water 3 miles (even as I've seen kids do so with the biggest smile you'll ever see)? Those folks might "survive" (for thirty or forty years) but humanity can do much, much, better. "If that is your goal by itself..." Take a moment to look at reading and writing scores in impoverished areas. Whereas our government assures a free education it is far from equal. That's really all I care about. The achievement gap is real and will be because wealthier kids get to school already better prepared. Further, they live in neighborhoods where the differences cascade. Fixing divergent school districts is a very hard problem so I see the best hope at the college level, so long as the opportunities are there (i.e. the point of this op-ed). "And fewer than 25 percent should attend. Your average person should enter vocational training rather than pretending to become a professional by spending 1000s of dollars on art history classes." That's a different argument (and one where we are probably on the same side). The point, for me, is equal opportunities. And too many start off too far behind. Just because one person can fight the tide, doesn't mean everyone has that capacity or the support necessary.

davidw 19y ago

> The poor are largely poor because of themselves and not circumstances. Be that true or not, their children still ought to have a shot at a better life.

mattm 19y ago

I lived in Kenya for a few months and I find now that I have little sympathy for the "poor" in western countries. The "poor" here have access to free libraries where they could learn pretty much whatever they want. They can access the Internet for free. They can get a $10 an hour job at a fast food restaurant to pay the bills. Yes, it's not glamorous but it's a start. The resources are out there if they want to find them. When you've seen child of 6 years old who probably does not have parents, who is living on the streets and who is drugged up on sniffing glue, poverty takes on a whole new meaning. Real poverty is not being able to afford food or shelter, not not being able to afford university education or cable TV.