Private schools are indefensible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/...hools-are-indefensible/618078/

Don’t let the title turn you off and give this a read!

This article was SO good and thought provoking. None of it was surprised because I figured things were the way they were regarding the chasm between private school and public schools; As well as the wealthy and everyone else.

The world has gotten more competitive. Hence the obsession with getting kids into the right school. Furthermore, I do think it’s unfair that public schools don’t have the same amount of resources as private school. I always knew they had more but I didn’t realize they had *that much more*. It’s no wonder that so many people that make it to the top come from private schools. It feels as if there are no hope for regular public school kids.

Again, really think that every parent should give this a read. Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts!
[Report Post]

This is nonsense. 70% of students at top colleges are from public schools and always have been.

this is what the author wrote "Less than 2 percent of the nation’s students attend so-called independent schools. But 24 percent of Yale’s class of 2024 attended an independent school. At Princeton, that figure is 25 percent. At Brown and Dartmouth, it is higher still: 29 percent." are they incorrect?

I have no reason to believe they are incorrect. But the question is, what do they tell you?

that life isn't fair? The whole Horatio Alger narrative of doing well in high school and then getting into an elite university and going on to fame and fortune is a fantasy. The reality is that the hedge fund manager's kid goes to the elite private with the other rich kids. Those kids, by and large, go to elite universities and then begin adult life with immense advantages. For some reason people still insist that there is a meritocracy, but they are demonstrably wrong- this is just another data point

It’s like the blatant truth is flying above so many people’s head. This is why so many everyday poor, working class. middle class, and upper middle classAmericans are frustrated!

All those kids start off lifve with immense advantages - wealthy, able to access things the rest of us can't, and more often than not, white. What of it?

There is a long, long way to go from the stunningly obvious observation that "life isn't fair" to "private schools are indefensible."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If most public schools in the US offered children a good education appropriate to their abilities, then maybe there wouldn't need to be private schools. But that's very far from the case, While affluent suburban districts are able to do this, the situation is very different in urban and rural areas. I would think the residents of the DC area would already know this. The truth is that the educational opportunities available to US schoolkids are very localized and unfairly deprive a great many of them of the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.

That is what is indefensible.

Agreed, and that is her conclusion.

[Anonymous]

At this point there is no answer to the question “How do you get your kid into Sidwell?” Nobody knows. The best strategy might be to launch an improbable run for United States president and then—if successful—turn in the application and hope for the best.

Lol! It's really not a secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is this magical time when getting into Yale was not easier if you were rich and well connected? Just like Sidwell doesn’t have to let in a representative mix of high school-age people who live in the DMV, Yale doesn’t have to let in a representative mix of college-age people. It’s not a moral failing on the part of either institution. They are businesses and have to take people who can pay for their services, both in tuition and in donations. If they can take some people who can’t because they can collect extra money from those who can, great. But, it’s baffling that we think that private colleges work any differently than private schools. These are not public goods. They do not need to have fair or equitable entry requirements. They must abide by the law, but public school students are not a protected class and the colleges are free to take the students they want to take.

Yale, Harvard, Princeton... could all exist indefinitely on their endowments. The idea that the paying students support the financial aid students is true for a lot of schools, but not these ones

Yes, but they are not required to draw down their endowments. They may charge the huge tuition that they do and plan to take many, many people who can pay it. That is their right and there really isn’t anything wrong with it. There are plenty of colleges for everyone who wants a college education. It’s not really a problem if these elite colleges want to prioritize legacies or athletes or oboe players or kids from private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At yet, the author sent her own children to one of the private schools she mocks. She also attended prep school herself and then on to UVa. She has a lot of “for me but not for thee” about her. She’s also been churning out this same mocking private school article about every 2-3 years for a while now.

I was a "lottery student" at one of the schools she mentioned in this article. I enjoyed it, and thought her analysis was pretty spot on. Didn't realize that she has been writing the same article every so often. Doesn't make it untrue though.

[Anonymous]

Eh. Pressure cooker parents, pressure cooker secondary schools, pressure cooker universities...to what end? Type As gonna Type A. What makes any of that "better"? We have a happy, chill life in our local public. Kids are doing great and I have no doubts they will do just fine in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is this magical time when getting into Yale was not easier if you were rich and well connected? Just like Sidwell doesn’t have to let in a representative mix of high school-age people who live in the DMV, Yale doesn’t have to let in a representative mix of college-age people. It’s not a moral failing on the part of either institution. They are businesses and have to take people who can pay for their services, both in tuition and in donations. If they can take some people who can’t because they can collect extra money from those who can, great. But, it’s baffling that we think that private colleges work any differently than private schools. These are not public goods. They do not need to have fair or equitable entry requirements. They must abide by the law, but public school students are not a protected class and the colleges are free to take the students they want to take.

Her next article will be about how Mercedes SUVs are too expensive for the average person, and have the best safety features, so the "poors" are missing out.

[Anonymous]

I graduated from Georgetown Prep. Most people consider Prep (though not Andover or Exeter) an elite school—at least among Catholic secondary education. I started in the Prince George’s County public school system. My parents, who worked 364 days a year, owned a family restaurant. I did not come from money. Prep was the best four years of my life and transformed my life. The experience opened doors for me that would not have been available even if I attended the best public schools in Montgomery County. So I ask a dumb question: I thought the entire point of sending a child to private school is to provide an unfair advantage, no? My son will attend Prep in the Fall.

[Anonymous]

Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

[Anonymous]

Typical emotional class-envy click bait article. As others have said, make public schools better. Silly comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Typical emotional class-envy click bait article. As others have said, make public schools better. Silly comes to mind.

Whose class envy? The author’s? That’s her class. It’s my class, too, and none of that is anything I want to be a part of. Sorry, not envious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If most public schools in the US offered children a good education appropriate to their abilities, then maybe there wouldn't need to be private schools. But that's very far from the case, While affluent suburban districts are able to do this, the situation is very different in urban and rural areas. I would think the residents of the DC area would already know this. The truth is that the educational opportunities available to US schoolkids are very localized and unfairly deprive a great many of them of the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.

That is what is indefensible.

Agreed, and that is her conclusion.

I also wholeheartedly agree.

I don't begrudge the loaded people their decision to send their precious Larlas to ridiculously expensive schools with greenhouses, teaching kittens, archeologist in training and whatever other whimsical crap the school comes up to justify its insane tuition rate. Do whatever you please with your money. But this really is a luxury service but the problem is, the standard, non-luxury offerings, are often so bad it's terrifying. And this is a great failure of this country's public school system setup. It's different in other parts of the world, radically different.

And this country has no right to call itself the first-world superpower while there are kids who can't read and write having graduated from public school. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If most public schools in the US offered children a good education appropriate to their abilities, then maybe there wouldn't need to be private schools. But that's very far from the case, While affluent suburban districts are able to do this, the situation is very different in urban and rural areas. I would think the residents of the DC area would already know this. The truth is that the educational opportunities available to US schoolkids are very localized and unfairly deprive a great many of them of the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential.

That is what is indefensible.

Agreed, and that is her conclusion.

Finally two people who get the message that was conveyed.

[Anonymous]

Almost all of this article was blah blah blah — omg rich people! are rich! and their children are privileged!!! Nothing remotely new or insightful.

But I was struck by this observation:
Many schools for the richest American kids have gates and security guards; the message is you are precious to us. Many schools for the poorest kids have metal detectors and police officers; the message is you are a threat to us.

Well-put, and interesting. What would public schools look like if we treated poor kids as if they were as precious as rich kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Query: If you can afford to purchase a luxury car with all the bells and whistles, why shouldn’t you if you so choose, or should you allow society to shame you into purchasing a more modest vehicle? So if an elite private school offers a superior educational experience, and you can afford to send your child to one, why wouldn’t you? Why should society shame the parents who send their kids to such schools or the kids who attend? Perhaps society should a examine how the public schools have failed our kids and misspent all the public funds allocated toward public education.

The only problem is that the choice increasingly seems to be between the luxury car, and taking Metrobus. The latter is crowded, inconvenient, and sporadically doesn't show up. We don't need to shame the people with cars but we do need the bus to function much much better than it does. We need it to be safe, reliable, accessible, and even pleasant and enriching to ride. Unfortunately there are people who feel that if the bus is nice to ride, that makes their luxury car less special.