Any kid who goes to any of these schools is extremely fortunate and privileged.
We need to stop using the word privileged. It suggests someone doesn’t deserve what they have.
It doesn't mean someone doesn't deserve what they have. It merely suggests that other people might also deserve those things, but don't have access to them. Big difference.
I disagree. The whole connotation behind privilege is that your advantage is unjustified. It’s the opposite of a right. I have a right to free speech. If it were a privilege, it would be conditional and can and perhaps should be taken away from me. Privilege is a negative concept and is certainly used in a very negative way nowadays. It’s actually a very toxic concept.
But if it's a right, everyone should have it equally. That's my point.
You have the right to apply to college and not have your race taken into account when they decide to admit you or not. That is the extent of your rights. I suppose if anyone is privileged it would be the students who don’t have to pay for services rendered, or more accurately the students whose costs are covered by the parents of the other students who do have to pay.
You missed my point.
There are many, many, kids who deserve good things in life, all those wonderful things that money can buy, large and small -- from homes full of books to SAT tutors, from healthy meals and streets safe from violence to a great school district with terrific college counselors -- and who would make the most of these things if they had access to them. We live in a world where a lot of deserving kids don't get these things.
I'm not saying the kids who get the good things don't deserve them. I'm saying many kids who *don't* get them also happen to deserve them. So if lots of kids deserve them, and only some get them, then some are privileged in ways others are not.
I understand that you hear a negative connotation in the word, and that it feels "toxic" to you. But the alternative is believing that the kids who don't have good things, so aren't able make the most of them, must not deserve them. That seems a whole lot more toxic to me.
This is now devolving into every other argument on the internet, and I suspect neither of us has time to rehash arguments that have already been made ad nauseum elsewhere. So I'll bid you goodnight and wish you well. Good luck to your kids.
+1
The PP says this very nicely. I looked at schools like these very wistfully when I was young. I would absolutely have loved to have attended one. My parents were wealthy (meaning I didn't get FA) but were never going to help me with college in any way at all. Not financially, not emotionally, and not logistically. They thought tertiary education was wasted on women and discouraged me from thinking about college. I left home as soon as I turned 18 and eventually put myself through a local public university while working. It was very important to me to pay for my kids' college educations, to encourage them to go to good schools, and to take them to visit several colleges and universities. I consider my children privileged (and that's a good thing). Very few kids go to schools like these unless they have supportive parents who are prepared to help them.
Words can have different meanings. Is privilege a "good thing" when we use it the way it is most often used now? I speak of the omnipresent "white privilege."
I guess it partly depends on whether you or your children have privilege (in which case you might see it as a good thing) or not (in which case you might see it as a bad thing). Privilege means that American society is not a perfect meritocracy. The U.S., once considered the land of opportunity, now offers less upward mobility than many European nations.
It's not just about wealth. Kids from poor homes are privileged if they have supportive, involved parents who encourage them to get good grades in high school and to aspire to college and who help them negotiate financial aid, the common app, etc. Rich parents may be unprepared to assist their children with college and may even have pathologies that lead them to sabotage their children's educational opportunities. My relatively wealthy parents tried to bill me for expenses like the food and toothpaste I used from birth to 18. None of us assumed they would help me with college.
Most of the kids who go to schools like the ones we're discussing here have at least one dedicated parent who takes them college shopping, agonizes over the quality of their college experience, pays or helps pay for them to take ACTs/SATs, helps organize transport to and from college, and pays for at least some of their tuition, room, and board. Some or all of these things are not available to many kids. Once students are at these expensive and high-quality SLACs, they are further advantaged by small classes, the nurture that comes with the SLAC experience, and the degree itself. I don't see how one can not consider such students privileged.
I do not consider those kids privileged. It’s not a privilege if a child receives the love and care that a good parent provides. That’s just what all parents should do to the best of their ability. Least of all is it a privilege in the sense that the word is often used today, ie an unearned benefit beyond the reach of those in some restricted group. Every parent has the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, to be a good parent and help their kids as best they can.
I can see you don't like the word "privileged." Perhaps one could use the euphemism "advantaged," but it really means the same thing. Yes, ideally, every child would have the perfect childhood, but that's simply not always the case. Some kids have toxic parents who abuse them, have addictions, or have personality disorders that cause them to be jealous of their children and sabotage their opportunities. Some grow up in abject poverty with poorly educated parents who can't wait for them to get a full-time job, even if it means dropping out of high school. My kids have friends whose parents never had any intention of putting them through college or even helping them apply. What do you want to call the dynamic between these kids and kids who have lovely, stable home lives, attend $50K a year prep schools, and grow up expecting to go to college? Some kids are privileged relative to others. There's no way around that.
The words do not mean the same thing because the word "privilege" has a specific negative meaning in today's society - it's something you didn't earn that should be taken away from you in the interest of "fairness". I totally disagree that kids who have normal loving parents are "privileged" in this sense.
"What do you want to call the dynamic between these kids and kids who have lovely, stable home lives, attend $50K a year prep schools, and grow up expecting to go to college?"
There is no "dynamic" whatsoever. Some kids have parents with more money than others, so what. Even amongst the kids who went to that expensive private schools, some of them will have much richer parents than others.
Of course, privilege is unearned. Rubbish. People who have money earned it, or someone related to them did. Keep seething about it though.
No, that does not mean it should be "taken away from you in the interest of fairness." We just accept that life is inherently unfair. It is fair that people who earned money - or yes, even inherited it - get to spend it how they like. Keep seething.
" Some kids have parents with more money than others, so what. "
Right. Some kids have more privilege than others. You can dismiss that as "So what?" or "Who cares?". The ability to do that is proof positive that privilege not only exists but is completely normalized.
Privilege exists. Privileged people like it that way. That's the main reason they deny its existence. Maybe we should move this discussion to its own bulletin board.
You’re right. I like it that “privilege” exists because it indicates hard work is rewarded. I have never denied that some people have more money than others, I’m just not butthurt about it like you are.
I think you don’t understand people like me, who don’t make a lot of money but have a ton of assets, bcs we’re savers. You can only shift so much into retirement when you’re making 180k as a single mom. But my home is appreciated and all my vanguard accounts are great, after 30 years of investing. But still it’s about 3mm and the idea of paying 90k for haveford instead of 50k for grinnell doesn’t make sense. 50k was my limit for any school. Grinnell is on the table with super generous top schools and state schools
Anonymous wrote:I think you don’t understand people like me, who don’t make a lot of money but have a ton of assets, bcs we’re savers. You can only shift so much into retirement when you’re making 180k as a single mom. But my home is appreciated and all my vanguard accounts are great, after 30 years of investing. But still it’s about 3mm and the idea of paying 90k for haveford instead of 50k for grinnell doesn’t make sense. 50k was my limit for any school. Grinnell is on the table with super generous top schools and state schools
Oberlin cost me approximately $20k per year with an amazing outcome including an ivy...
Anonymous wrote:Grinnell’s recently adopted strategic plan inexplicably recommends placing more — not less — emphasis on sports. Looks like they did not get the post-affirmative action memo, the fact that SLACs are justifiably being criticized for sports preferences in admissions, and the fact that the majority of Grinnell’s student body is, well, non-jock. Grinnell is trending backwards, trying to be more like NESCAC:
Anonymous wrote:Grinnell is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into Swat or Haverford.
Kenyon is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into a top NESCAC.
Oberlin is just Oberlin. Kids who go there want to be there. It’s not for everyone.
Silly comment. Grinnell is ranked higher than Haverford and has a much bigger endowment. DC (SAT 1580) wanted a SLAC and was accepted to Swat, Haverford, Grinnell, Kenyon, and some other top SLACs, and chose Grinnell. DC preferred Haverford to Swat. I thought Swat was the most similar to Grinnell. After submitting apps, DC felt increasingly drawn to the Midwest. For DC, the choice came down to Carleton, Grinnell, or Kenyon. They felt Grinnell was the best fit. So far, so good.
Anonymous wrote:Grinnell is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into Swat or Haverford.
Kenyon is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into a top NESCAC.
Oberlin is just Oberlin. Kids who go there want to be there. It’s not for everyone.
The cluelessness about families' financial considerations is mind-boggling to me.
Yes, yes, yes.
BTW, many of DCs' friends passed on Haverford as it felt too small to them in a way that other LACs did not.
Haverford and Bryn Mawr together are almost the same school, which gives students some of the benefits of a larger LAC. There's a shuttle that runs between them. Students can take classes at both, eat in either dining hall, and live in the residence halls of either school.
Anonymous wrote:I think you don’t understand people like me, who don’t make a lot of money but have a ton of assets, bcs we’re savers. You can only shift so much into retirement when you’re making 180k as a single mom. But my home is appreciated and all my vanguard accounts are great, after 30 years of investing. But still it’s about 3mm and the idea of paying 90k for haveford instead of 50k for grinnell doesn’t make sense. 50k was my limit for any school. Grinnell is on the table with super generous top schools and state schools
Oberlin cost me approximately $20k per year with an amazing outcome including an ivy...
Anonymous wrote:Grinnell is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into Swat or Haverford.
Kenyon is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into a top NESCAC.
Oberlin is just Oberlin. Kids who go there want to be there. It’s not for everyone.
The cluelessness about families' financial considerations is mind-boggling to me.
Yes, yes, yes.
BTW, many of DCs' friends passed on Haverford as it felt too small to them in a way that other LACs did not.
OMG. We were at Haverford three weeks ago. DS, DH, and I each felt the environment was completely claustrophobic. It was even worse as we left campus in our car and realized how small it all is (notwithstanding a few acres of trees fringing the actual campus/buildings). It is off the lisr!
Anonymous wrote:Grinnell is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into Swat or Haverford.
Kenyon is a Plan B for kids who don’t get into a top NESCAC.
Oberlin is just Oberlin. Kids who go there want to be there. It’s not for everyone.
The cluelessness about families' financial considerations is mind-boggling to me.
Yes, yes, yes.
BTW, many of DCs' friends passed on Haverford as it felt too small to them in a way that other LACs did not.
OMG. We were at Haverford three weeks ago. DS, DH, and I each felt the environment was completely claustrophobic. It was even worse as we left campus in our car and realized how small it all is (notwithstanding a few acres of trees fringing the actual campus/buildings). It is off the lisr!
+1. My kid applied to SLACs and small to medium Universities. But, had a hard rule of: must be larger than my HS. Which was 3000 kids, BTW. Seemed reasonable to me. [ended up at WM, which is a great size for them. “larger than HS,” but small classes amd a smaller sized, cohesive community.
Anonymous wrote:Denison and Grinnell both are 80k schools that offer 25-30K off in merit - in this way they're similar.
For my kid, coming from a NYC private, I made him pick a couple financial fits and he preferred Denison's location and vibe. It's a bit more straight ahead, whereas Grinnell can be a bit kookier. I wouldnt be shocked if others from the NE preferred it.
“Merit aid” of 25-30k is just a standing discount off of a fictitious sticker price. It’s a marketing trick, not true financial aid. Which means the out-the-door price is $55K-ish. Denison is well endowed, and this is how they compete for strong students (or in many cases, athletes). Good for Denison. Great school.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}