Brookings Institution Glass Ceiling Report Says Colleges Should Admit More Poor Kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to add a bit of perspective, let’s remember that our president was raised by a single mother and that the 10 wealthiest Americans have decidedly humble roots: son of a lawyer, graduate of DC’s Wilson high school, adopted son of a government employee, the son’s of a man who began as a printer’s apprentice, the children of a high school grad who grew up on a farm and the son of an immigrant and real estate agent.

+1. The American Dream isn't that everyone will succeed, but that everyone CAN succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they're truly talking about poor kids who are more objectively smart and capable then I whole heartily

Obviously. If two applicants have similar test scores and grades, the poor kid should get get the preference and the Ivy endowment should pay for it. It would be nice if qualified low-income applicants could cut in line before legacies and athletes, but that will never, ever happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to add a bit of perspective, let’s remember that our president was raised by a single mother and that the 10 wealthiest Americans have decidedly humble roots: son of a lawyer, graduate of DC’s Wilson high school, adopted son of a government employee, the son’s of a man who began as a printer’s apprentice, the children of a high school grad who grew up on a farm and the son of an immigrant and real estate agent.

+1. The American Dream isn't that everyone will succeed, but that everyone CAN succeed.

Provided the playing field is equal.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to add a bit of perspective, let’s remember that our president was raised by a single mother and that the 10 wealthiest Americans have decidedly humble roots: son of a lawyer, graduate of DC’s Wilson high school, adopted son of a government employee, the son’s of a man who began as a printer’s apprentice, the children of a high school grad who grew up on a farm and the son of an immigrant and real estate agent.

+1. The American Dream isn't that everyone will succeed, but that everyone CAN succeed.

Provided the playing field is equal.....

It is never equal, but more equal than ever now (except for those subject to reverse discrimination)

[Anonymous]

Brookings = too left of center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting study. I think when one of these researchers kids gets into an elite university, they should allow an underprivileged student to take their child's place instead. Maybe the members of the Brookings Institution could lead by example.

Interesting - and what exactly is the groundbreaking perspective and enlightening dimension that your programmed child has to offer? It's not where you're from - it is where you are going. We have seen what the one perceters bring to the table - and I for one believe they have had their day (signed a one percenter working in the elite, ivy infused policy community). I agree with Brookings 100%. If you sat around one of our tables and saw who was controlling the future - and what they have to say you would be appalled by the lopsided and misguided perspective. Zero creativity. Zero understanding or comprehension of the problems they are entrusted to solve. Our system is horribly broken and dysfunctional because of the misguided judgement that experts lacking any meaningful experiences or understanding can solve the problems of the less fortunate.

[Anonymous]

PP again- I should not have limited my comment to the "less fortunate" - it really applies to anybody. We need more diversity at the highest levels. The other option would be a total cultural shift in which elite institutions recruit from stand outs from community colleges and state universities - but for now the Brookings recommendations make the most sense for eliminating a 2 class system. Let the merit be recognized and embraced - it is there in droves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting study. I think when one of these researchers kids gets into an elite university, they should allow an underprivileged student to take their child's place instead. Maybe the members of the Brookings Institution could lead by example.

Interesting - and what exactly is the groundbreaking perspective and enlightening dimension that your programmed child has to offer? It's not where you're from - it is where you are going. We have seen what the one perceters bring to the table - and I for one believe they have had their day (signed a one percenter working in the elite, ivy infused policy community). I agree with Brookings 100%. If you sat around one of our tables and saw who was controlling the future - and what they have to say you would be appalled by the lopsided and misguided perspective. Zero creativity. Zero understanding or comprehension of the problems they are entrusted to solve. Our system is horribly broken and dysfunctional because of the misguided judgement that experts lacking any meaningful experiences or understanding can solve the problems of the less fortunate.

Which society in human history has more creativity and innovation than ours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting study. I think when one of these researchers kids gets into an elite university, they should allow an underprivileged student to take their child's place instead. Maybe the members of the Brookings Institution could lead by example.

Interesting - and what exactly is the groundbreaking perspective and enlightening dimension that your programmed child has to offer? It's not where you're from - it is where you are going. We have seen what the one perceters bring to the table - and I for one believe they have had their day (signed a one percenter working in the elite, ivy infused policy community). I agree with Brookings 100%. If you sat around one of our tables and saw who was controlling the future - and what they have to say you would be appalled by the lopsided and misguided perspective. Zero creativity. Zero understanding or comprehension of the problems they are entrusted to solve. Our system is horribly broken and dysfunctional because of the misguided judgement that experts lacking any meaningful experiences or understanding can solve the problems of the less fortunate.

Which society in human history has more creativity and innovation than ours?

None. The innovation and advancement of the human condition in the last 150 years is unprecedented. Much of this innovation occurred occurred without the "benefit" of diversity as the innovation came disproportionately from that small slice of humanity known as the Caucasian male.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the suggestion that race based affirmative action should be re-tasked to favor lower- income applicants regardless of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Much of this innovation occurred occurred without the "benefit" of diversity as the innovation came disproportionately from that small slice of humanity known as the Caucasian male.

Wealthy Caucasian males being the only group that historically had education opportunities and freedom to pursue arts and sciences at leisure.

[Anonymous]

This is a stunning analysis of the systematic discrimination against Asian students in college admissions:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

Very similar to the system used to limit the # of Jewish students in the 1920's and 30's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Much of this innovation occurred occurred without the "benefit" of diversity as the innovation came disproportionately from that small slice of humanity known as the Caucasian male.

Wealthy Caucasian males being the only group that historically had education opportunities and freedom to pursue arts and sciences at leisure.

Which is why we've seen such a burst in innovation from non-Caucasian males in recent years . . . or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the suggestion that race based affirmative action should be re-tasked to favor lower- income applicants regardless of race.

IMO, that's probably not going to happen. If race based affirmative action was replaced by SES affirmative action, the number of minority kids in top schools would plummet. There are many more poor whites than poor blacks and Hispanics, and poor whites score significantly higher on entrance exams than poor URM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the suggestion that race based affirmative action should be re-tasked to favor lower- income applicants regardless of race.

IMO, that's probably not going to happen. If race based affirmative action was replaced by SES affirmative action, the number of minority kids in top schools would plummet. There are many more poor whites than poor blacks and Hispanics, and poor whites score significantly higher on entrance exams than poor URM.

"poor whites score significantly higher on entrance exams than poor URM."

I don't think that is true, but if it is - what is the justification for denying the higher scoring poor whites the opportunity just because they are white?