Schools prepare children to occupy particular rungs on the social ladder (Journal Article)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivy leaguer for grad school here. HS guidance counselor kept steering me to voc programs when applying to colleges during my senior year. Kept on talking about how some students can be mistaken in what they think would be a good program for them. Didn't matter that I was on line to graduate with high honors, A- average, etc in a college prep curriculum (hadn't taken a single voc ed program except for two mandatory courses in middle school). She just wasn't able to place me in any context other than my working class roots.

I hear this a lot....

I think it was particularly true in the 50s, 60s, 70s. Wonder if it has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I was treated differently for sure. Graduated in 1985 and had all kinds of comments from teachers and guidance counselors, (and my parents), trying to set my sights lower.

Now I'm an attorney with an upper middle class income, and I'm amazed how much differently people treat my son. My husband insisted on private school. I was fine with public. But I can see social advantages that my son is getting. Not sure if they are worth the tuition, but it's fascinating to watch.

David Brooks' book, The Social Animal, explores this in great detail. As does the book Unequal Childhoods.

Very sad. Education is supposed to be the greats equalizer.

I imagine there are very few private schools that elicit that type of respect in DC. STA or Siidwell?

All the top schools in DC (NCS,GDS,Potomac,Maret, etc) elicit respect in the DC area, if not in the mid-Atlantic, among those familiar with private schools.

I know that as well, but something about the post made me narrow it down to only two. You are guilty of the sin of omission also, as you can add Burke, WIS, Landon, Holton Arms, and many other local schools to that list.

Tiny private in suburbs. All I meant is they expect him to excel, whereas my school expected me to fail based on zip code and most likely the clothes I wore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I was treated differently for sure. Graduated in 1985 and had all kinds of comments from teachers and guidance counselors, (and my parents), trying to set my sights lower.

Now I'm an attorney with an upper middle class income, and I'm amazed how much differently people treat my son. My husband insisted on private school. I was fine with public. But I can see social advantages that my son is getting. Not sure if they are worth the tuition, but it's fascinating to watch.

David Brooks' book, The Social Animal, explores this in great detail. As does the book Unequal Childhoods.

Very sad. Education is supposed to be the greats equalizer.

well this just about describes half my generation so it doesn't prove much. But I got a lot out of the Social Animal. Great book and right on target.

Not trying to prove anything, other than I made it out of poverty despite what people assumed about me.

[Anonymous]

This is why some form of affirmative action is needed at least based on SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I was treated differently for sure. Graduated in 1985 and had all kinds of comments from teachers and guidance counselors, (and my parents), trying to set my sights lower.

Now I'm an attorney with an upper middle class income, and I'm amazed how much differently people treat my son. My husband insisted on private school. I was fine with public. But I can see social advantages that my son is getting. Not sure if they are worth the tuition, but it's fascinating to watch.

David Brooks' book, The Social Animal, explores this in great detail. As does the book Unequal Childhoods.

Very sad. Education is supposed to be the greats equalizer.

well this just about describes half my generation so it doesn't prove much. But I got a lot out of the Social Animal. Great book and right on target.

Sorry, but half your generation are not lawyers with upper middle class incomes. There may be a crisis in big law but it is not because half of Gen X and Y are lawyers.

[Anonymous]

@ 15:53. Not sure how you are going to narrow it to two but exclude NCS. There rankings, SAT scores, College admissions , etc. are higher than St. Albans and just below Sidwell. There is a reason they call it the Big 3.

The other schools you mentioned are also good but not the same as the Big 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why I homeschool. I don't want my kid in a box.

I love this parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why I homeschool. I don't want my kid in a box.

But they will be in a box. The "home-school-ed" box.

And "boxed in" from any outside influences - it's like the opposite of getting positive exposure - it's getting none at all.

Home schoolers today have a huge network and many opportunities to socialize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I was treated differently for sure. Graduated in 1985 and had all kinds of comments from teachers and guidance counselors, (and my parents), trying to set my sights lower.

Now I'm an attorney with an upper middle class income, and I'm amazed how much differently people treat my son. My husband insisted on private school. I was fine with public. But I can see social advantages that my son is getting. Not sure if they are worth the tuition, but it's fascinating to watch.

David Brooks' book, The Social Animal, explores this in great detail. As does the book Unequal Childhoods.

Very sad. Education is supposed to be the greats equalizer.

well this just about describes half my generation so it doesn't prove much. But I got a lot out of the Social Animal. Great book and right on target.

Sorry, but half your generation are not lawyers with upper middle class incomes. There may be a crisis in big law but it is not because half of Gen X and Y are lawyers.

Don't be obtuse. You can be a GS-14 or 15 lawyer and make an "upper middle class" income. Can't swing a dead cat around here and not hit half a dozen lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why some form of affirmative action is needed at least based on SES.

My sister and I are first-generation American and Latina. We attended an affluent suburban Catholic high school because my father, an engineer, wanted us to have a good education. My sister earned a 1500 on her SAT and had only A+s on her transcript (back in the 80s). No one in the counseling office (back in the Midwest) suggested that she apply to a reach, much less an Ivy, so she happily attended a regional Catholic college instead. She was accepts to Yale medical school, and is now very well off.

We were not socio-economically poor, more solidly upper-middle class. And yet no one ever suggested that my Latina sister should reach for the Ivies in college. It is not just an economic thing, it remains a race and ethnicity issue as well (Sterling?).

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I meant to type "1540" for SAT

[Anonymous]

Nobody at my white, upper-middle class kid's DMV-area public school suggested DC should attend an Ivy, either. The counselor didn't stand in DC's way and presumably wrote a decent rec, because DC got in.

I get the impression that the default, for a lot of area public and private school counselors, is public universities and 2nd-tier privates. Perhaps this comes from unfamiliarity, because we saw some cluelessness wrt the Ivy's language and math requirements. Another issue may be trying to lower expectations: DC's friends at a Big 3 talk about being steered away from Ivies, perhaps because of the intense competition from classmates. Perhaps, also, counselors assume that most families want to max out merit aid, so maybe it's not all coming from a bad place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why I homeschool. I don't want my kid in a box.

But they will be in a box. The "home-school-ed" box.

And "boxed in" from any outside influences - it's like the opposite of getting positive exposure - it's getting none at all.

That depends on the manner in which one home schools.

[Anonymous]

I read the article earlier today and was trying to make sense of why the teaching methods are so different and it hit me that it has to do with student preparedness rather than a system that is trying to keep everyone in their SES place. If the student body is not prepared and doesn't have family support then the teachers and school will have to work to meet the needs of that population. They can't ask unprepared children to contemplate higher level thinking activities when the kids don't understand the basics. The teachers need to instill tight discipline as many of these kids don't have good role models at home and are more likely to act out.

On the other side, the super wealthy have generally speaking very well prepared children. If a child struggles in an area, the parents generally have the education to help their children or hire tutors. The teachers therefore are teaching to kids that have a solid foundation and are building upon the higher level foundation that the kids already have.

A good analogy is the difference between taking calculus class and an applied engineering class. In the calculus class you are learning the basics. In the engineering class, you learn the why. However, you can not understand the why before you understand the basics. Unfortunately for schools that serve poor children, they can never get past the basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I was treated differently for sure. Graduated in 1985 and had all kinds of comments from teachers and guidance counselors, (and my parents), trying to set my sights lower.

Now I'm an attorney with an upper middle class income, and I'm amazed how much differently people treat my son. My husband insisted on private school. I was fine with public. But I can see social advantages that my son is getting. Not sure if they are worth the tuition, but it's fascinating to watch.

David Brooks' book, The Social Animal, explores this in great detail. As does the book Unequal Childhoods.

Very sad. Education is supposed to be the greats equalizer.

well this just about describes half my generation so it doesn't prove much. But I got a lot out of the Social Animal. Great book and right on target.

Sorry, but half your generation are not lawyers with upper middle class incomes. There may be a crisis in big law but it is not because half of Gen X and Y are lawyers.

Don't be obtuse. You can be a GS-14 or 15 lawyer and make an "upper middle class" income. Can't swing a dead cat around here and not hit half a dozen lawyers.

Sorry, but around here is not the whole nation or half a generation - it is just a sliver of the country. I am not being obtuse, just accurate.