College admissions from low SES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re having trouble following along so let’s try to make this simple for you. McLean and Langley are not inherently better than low SES schools. They are just filled with the top 1% that can buy their way to success more easily than others. Therefore, they are not better, they are just wealthier. It’s foolish to think a cinderblock building is better than another cinderblock building.

It's foolish to think that all these schools are no more than generic cinderblock buildings, or that the wealthy simply purchase success for their offspring. You can sputter here all you want, but it won't change the rational decisions that people continue to make in real life about schools.

There could be some differences but it does boil down to wealth or lack of wealth. No need to be defensive. DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re having trouble following along so let’s try to make this simple for you. McLean and Langley are not inherently better than low SES schools. They are just filled with the top 1% that can buy their way to success more easily than others. Therefore, they are not better, they are just wealthier. It’s foolish to think a cinderblock building is better than another cinderblock building.

It's foolish to think that all these schools are no more than generic cinderblock buildings, or that the wealthy simply purchase success for their offspring. You can sputter here all you want, but it won't change the rational decisions that people continue to make in real life about schools.

There could be some differences but it does boil down to wealth or lack of wealth. No need to be defensive. DP

Objecting to the reductive is not defensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re having trouble following along so let’s try to make this simple for you. McLean and Langley are not inherently better than low SES schools. They are just filled with the top 1% that can buy their way to success more easily than others. Therefore, they are not better, they are just wealthier. It’s foolish to think a cinderblock building is better than another cinderblock building.

It's foolish to think that all these schools are no more than generic cinderblock buildings, or that the wealthy simply purchase success for their offspring. You can sputter here all you want, but it won't change the rational decisions that people continue to make in real life about schools.

There could be some differences but it does boil down to wealth or lack of wealth. No need to be defensive. DP

Objecting to the reductive is not defensive.

Can you give some examples of differences not tied to SES status?

[Anonymous]

High SES status is an advantage, not the disadvantage posited in the OP.

One advantage it affords is the ability to send one's kids to schools where the main focus isn't merely getting kids to pass SOLs and graduate, which tends to drag down all the students and keep top students from reaching their full potential.

PP knows this, which is why they argued for "balancing" the wealth and poverty at different schools, a form of overt social engineering that FCPS eschews despite its occasional left-leaning rhetoric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High SES status is an advantage, not the disadvantage posited in the OP.

One advantage it affords is the ability to send one's kids to schools where the main focus isn't merely getting kids to pass SOLs and graduate, which tends to drag down all the students and keep top students from reaching their full potential.

PP knows this, which is why they argued for "balancing" the wealth and poverty at different schools, a form of overt social engineering that FCPS eschews despite its occasional left-leaning rhetoric.

Almost all differences relate back to wealth or lack of wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High SES status is an advantage, not the disadvantage posited in the OP.

One advantage it affords is the ability to send one's kids to schools where the main focus isn't merely getting kids to pass SOLs and graduate, which tends to drag down all the students and keep top students from reaching their full potential.

PP knows this, which is why they argued for "balancing" the wealth and poverty at different schools, a form of overt social engineering that FCPS eschews despite its occasional left-leaning rhetoric.

Almost all differences relate back to wealth or lack of wealth.

Assuming this to be true, one of these differences is the differences in school cultures.

Few believe that, as a general proposition, if you take two kids from families with similar financial resources, the one attending a lower SES school will fare better. There may be exceptions, of course. But you're tilting at windmills if you want to claim higher SES people are behaving irrationally when it comes to selecting school pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High SES status is an advantage, not the disadvantage posited in the OP.

One advantage it affords is the ability to send one's kids to schools where the main focus isn't merely getting kids to pass SOLs and graduate, which tends to drag down all the students and keep top students from reaching their full potential.

PP knows this, which is why they argued for "balancing" the wealth and poverty at different schools, a form of overt social engineering that FCPS eschews despite its occasional left-leaning rhetoric.

Almost all differences relate back to wealth or lack of wealth.

Assuming this to be true, one of these differences is the differences in school cultures.

Few believe that, as a general proposition, if you take two kids from families with similar financial resources, the one attending a lower SES school will fare better. There may be exceptions, of course. But you're tilting at windmills if you want to claim higher SES people are behaving irrationally when it comes to selecting school pyramids.

Bad culture is a product of poverty. Low SES schools are dealing with the byproducts of poverty which can spiral into all kinds of issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High SES status is an advantage, not the disadvantage posited in the OP.

One advantage it affords is the ability to send one's kids to schools where the main focus isn't merely getting kids to pass SOLs and graduate, which tends to drag down all the students and keep top students from reaching their full potential.

PP knows this, which is why they argued for "balancing" the wealth and poverty at different schools, a form of overt social engineering that FCPS eschews despite its occasional left-leaning rhetoric.

Almost all differences relate back to wealth or lack of wealth.

Assuming this to be true, one of these differences is the differences in school cultures.

Few believe that, as a general proposition, if you take two kids from families with similar financial resources, the one attending a lower SES school will fare better. There may be exceptions, of course. But you're tilting at windmills if you want to claim higher SES people are behaving irrationally when it comes to selecting school pyramids.

Bad culture is a product of poverty. Low SES schools are dealing with the byproducts of poverty which can spiral into all kinds of issues.

I'm not so certain that poverty alone ties into bad culture. After all, so far this year, I've gotten a notice of a student overdose death at WSHS, as well as a gun incident involving WSHS and LBSS students that resulted in strict screening for all football games.

I wasn't aware that poverty was a problem at WSHS or LBSS, but there are issues there regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is that kids from higher SES families have greater expectations of attending college. They have had opportunities to travel away from home without parents and are likely to be more comfortable with living away from home. There is also the real possibility that the older child in a lower SES family is balancing school and helping the family so they have an incentive to attend college closer to home to help watch siblings. They may be accepted at UVA and choose GMU because it is easier to help the family.

There are programs in place starting in ES in order to try and help lower income kids or first generation to college kids stay on track to be able to attend college and succeed when they go to college. There is all sorts of data that show that it is a big jump for kids to make and that many struggle with getting to college and then staying in college.

I don't think that most of the people who have grown up understanding that college was the path they were expected to take understand how hard it is to get on that path if you don't come from a background where that is the norm. Or how overwhelming it is to go away to college and not have support at home who understands the demands at college.

My brother and I were from a poor single mother home. My mother had addiction problems. We went to very good schools on athletic scholarship. Completely on our own financially and otherwise. The challenge we faced wasn’t in going away to college or not having family understand the demands (our mother had no idea of our majors or studies). The primary challenge was in making the right choices given the considerable freedoms we enjoyed. Athletics may have helped, but we quickly on our own discovered we despite appearances were not talented enough for any drugs or alcohol. Too much threat to fragile immune systems under intense training. Plus the motivation not to look stupid academically in front of wealthy classmates was powerful. No social life though.

The next biggest challenge was in being a bit behind academically. Only one way to catch up and you have to work for it. My honors adviser flat out told me that catching up was a function of how much ego damage one could sustain. In an era of safe spaces, query how many students are given this message today?

I knew that university was going to change the trajectory of my life. Indeed that happened.

From a distance one could observe athletics was a great social program for low SES types like us. You have to make it work for you as opposed to letting the system work you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High SES status is an advantage, not the disadvantage posited in the OP.

One advantage it affords is the ability to send one's kids to schools where the main focus isn't merely getting kids to pass SOLs and graduate, which tends to drag down all the students and keep top students from reaching their full potential.

PP knows this, which is why they argued for "balancing" the wealth and poverty at different schools, a form of overt social engineering that FCPS eschews despite its occasional left-leaning rhetoric.

Almost all differences relate back to wealth or lack of wealth.

Assuming this to be true, one of these differences is the differences in school cultures.

Few believe that, as a general proposition, if you take two kids from families with similar financial resources, the one attending a lower SES school will fare better. There may be exceptions, of course. But you're tilting at windmills if you want to claim higher SES people are behaving irrationally when it comes to selecting school pyramids.

Bad culture is a product of poverty. Low SES schools are dealing with the byproducts of poverty which can spiral into all kinds of issues.

I'm not so certain that poverty alone ties into bad culture. After all, so far this year, I've gotten a notice of a student overdose death at WSHS, as well as a gun incident involving WSHS and LBSS students that resulted in strict screening for all football games.

I wasn't aware that poverty was a problem at WSHS or LBSS, but there are issues there regardless.

Let’s not become irrational. Even wealthy private schools have some discipline issues. But concentrations of poverty are tied to higher crime, etc. If you think WSHS and LBSS have bad cultures you should send your kid to Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of it is that kids from higher SES families have greater expectations of attending college. They have had opportunities to travel away from home without parents and are likely to be more comfortable with living away from home. There is also the real possibility that the older child in a lower SES family is balancing school and helping the family so they have an incentive to attend college closer to home to help watch siblings. They may be accepted at UVA and choose GMU because it is easier to help the family.

There are programs in place starting in ES in order to try and help lower income kids or first generation to college kids stay on track to be able to attend college and succeed when they go to college. There is all sorts of data that show that it is a big jump for kids to make and that many struggle with getting to college and then staying in college.

I don't think that most of the people who have grown up understanding that college was the path they were expected to take understand how hard it is to get on that path if you don't come from a background where that is the norm. Or how overwhelming it is to go away to college and not have support at home who understands the demands at college.

My brother and I were from a poor single mother home. My mother had addiction problems. We went to very good schools on athletic scholarship. Completely on our own financially and otherwise. The challenge we faced wasn’t in going away to college or not having family understand the demands (our mother had no idea of our majors or studies). The primary challenge was in making the right choices given the considerable freedoms we enjoyed. Athletics may have helped, but we quickly on our own discovered we despite appearances were not talented enough for any drugs or alcohol. Too much threat to fragile immune systems under intense training. Plus the motivation not to look stupid academically in front of wealthy classmates was powerful. No social life though.

The next biggest challenge was in being a bit behind academically. Only one way to catch up and you have to work for it. My honors adviser flat out told me that catching up was a function of how much ego damage one could sustain. In an era of safe spaces, query how many students are given this message today?

I knew that university was going to change the trajectory of my life. Indeed that happened.

From a distance one could observe athletics was a great social program for low SES types like us. You have to make it work for you as opposed to letting the system work you.

Or, the system could be fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA can find poor kids from Richmond and Newport News. They don't need Herndon kids to fill that niche.

Richmond and Tidewater also have rich kids. Plus it’s easier to stand out at a FCPS poor high school.

Nah, plenty of poor kids in FCPS but most aren't UVA/VT material.

There are plenty of low income kids who are just as capable as, if not more capable than, higher-income kids. If they can get merit-based and income-based aid/scholarships, there is no reason they "aren't UVA/VT material."

One's family income is unrelated to aptitude or work ethic. While some kids may have the economic advantage of more prep classes, that doesn't mean they are intellectually superior in any way.

Assuming that’s true, most of the kids from lower-income families who fit that profile will still end up at a GMU or VCU, not UVA or VT.

UMC parents know the advantages (academic and social) of sending their kids to top K-12 schools generally outweigh the purported advantage of being a “bigger fish in a smaller pond.” Claims to the contrary are wishful thinking that align with neither human behavior nor recent history (just look at the boundary study just conducted by our 100% Democratic School Board that moved no UMC neighborhoods to poorer schools).

Why will the low income kid still end up at VCU even if UVA material? What are these advantages at top k12 schools that UMC knows about?

Kids from poorer families attending schools with less advanced peer groups typically end up with lower test scores and less impressive academic profiles even if they have the same innate intelligence.

Most parents understand this. But if you think you can game the system by sending your kid to a school with few high performing kids, however, no one will stop you.

Poor kids end up with lesser credentials because of less wealth. A wealthy kid would have the same stats and credentials at Justice as they would at Langley. It’s not the school, it’s wealth.

In that scenario you’re implicitly conceding the wealthy kids at Justice are not going to have the same stats and credentials as the wealthy kids at Langley. There are wealthy kids in the Lake Barcroft and Sleepy Hollow areas at Justice, but they aren’t ending up as National Merit Semifinalists and Commended Students very often compared to their Langley counterparts.

Says who? Signed, a Justice parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA can find poor kids from Richmond and Newport News. They don't need Herndon kids to fill that niche.

Richmond and Tidewater also have rich kids. Plus it’s easier to stand out at a FCPS poor high school.

Nah, plenty of poor kids in FCPS but most aren't UVA/VT material.

There are plenty of low income kids who are just as capable as, if not more capable than, higher-income kids. If they can get merit-based and income-based aid/scholarships, there is no reason they "aren't UVA/VT material."

One's family income is unrelated to aptitude or work ethic. While some kids may have the economic advantage of more prep classes, that doesn't mean they are intellectually superior in any way.

Assuming that’s true, most of the kids from lower-income families who fit that profile will still end up at a GMU or VCU, not UVA or VT.

UMC parents know the advantages (academic and social) of sending their kids to top K-12 schools generally outweigh the purported advantage of being a “bigger fish in a smaller pond.” Claims to the contrary are wishful thinking that align with neither human behavior nor recent history (just look at the boundary study just conducted by our 100% Democratic School Board that moved no UMC neighborhoods to poorer schools).

Why will the low income kid still end up at VCU even if UVA material? What are these advantages at top k12 schools that UMC knows about?

Kids from poorer families attending schools with less advanced peer groups typically end up with lower test scores and less impressive academic profiles even if they have the same innate intelligence.

Most parents understand this. But if you think you can game the system by sending your kid to a school with few high performing kids, however, no one will stop you.

Poor kids end up with lesser credentials because of less wealth. A wealthy kid would have the same stats and credentials at Justice as they would at Langley. It’s not the school, it’s wealth.

In that scenario you’re implicitly conceding the wealthy kids at Justice are not going to have the same stats and credentials as the wealthy kids at Langley. There are wealthy kids in the Lake Barcroft and Sleepy Hollow areas at Justice, but they aren’t ending up as National Merit Semifinalists and Commended Students very often compared to their Langley counterparts.

Says who? Signed, a Justice parent.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA can find poor kids from Richmond and Newport News. They don't need Herndon kids to fill that niche.

Richmond and Tidewater also have rich kids. Plus it’s easier to stand out at a FCPS poor high school.

Nah, plenty of poor kids in FCPS but most aren't UVA/VT material.

There are plenty of low income kids who are just as capable as, if not more capable than, higher-income kids. If they can get merit-based and income-based aid/scholarships, there is no reason they "aren't UVA/VT material."

One's family income is unrelated to aptitude or work ethic. While some kids may have the economic advantage of more prep classes, that doesn't mean they are intellectually superior in any way.

Assuming that’s true, most of the kids from lower-income families who fit that profile will still end up at a GMU or VCU, not UVA or VT.

UMC parents know the advantages (academic and social) of sending their kids to top K-12 schools generally outweigh the purported advantage of being a “bigger fish in a smaller pond.” Claims to the contrary are wishful thinking that align with neither human behavior nor recent history (just look at the boundary study just conducted by our 100% Democratic School Board that moved no UMC neighborhoods to poorer schools).

Why will the low income kid still end up at VCU even if UVA material? What are these advantages at top k12 schools that UMC knows about?

Kids from poorer families attending schools with less advanced peer groups typically end up with lower test scores and less impressive academic profiles even if they have the same innate intelligence.

Most parents understand this. But if you think you can game the system by sending your kid to a school with few high performing kids, however, no one will stop you.

Poor kids end up with lesser credentials because of less wealth. A wealthy kid would have the same stats and credentials at Justice as they would at Langley. It’s not the school, it’s wealth.

In that scenario you’re implicitly conceding the wealthy kids at Justice are not going to have the same stats and credentials as the wealthy kids at Langley. There are wealthy kids in the Lake Barcroft and Sleepy Hollow areas at Justice, but they aren’t ending up as National Merit Semifinalists and Commended Students very often compared to their Langley counterparts.

Says who? Signed, a Justice parent.

Says FCPS. Justice had 1 NMSF this year. Langley had 23.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA can find poor kids from Richmond and Newport News. They don't need Herndon kids to fill that niche.

Richmond and Tidewater also have rich kids. Plus it’s easier to stand out at a FCPS poor high school.

Nah, plenty of poor kids in FCPS but most aren't UVA/VT material.

There are plenty of low income kids who are just as capable as, if not more capable than, higher-income kids. If they can get merit-based and income-based aid/scholarships, there is no reason they "aren't UVA/VT material."

One's family income is unrelated to aptitude or work ethic. While some kids may have the economic advantage of more prep classes, that doesn't mean they are intellectually superior in any way.

Assuming that’s true, most of the kids from lower-income families who fit that profile will still end up at a GMU or VCU, not UVA or VT.

UMC parents know the advantages (academic and social) of sending their kids to top K-12 schools generally outweigh the purported advantage of being a “bigger fish in a smaller pond.” Claims to the contrary are wishful thinking that align with neither human behavior nor recent history (just look at the boundary study just conducted by our 100% Democratic School Board that moved no UMC neighborhoods to poorer schools).

Why will the low income kid still end up at VCU even if UVA material? What are these advantages at top k12 schools that UMC knows about?

Kids from poorer families attending schools with less advanced peer groups typically end up with lower test scores and less impressive academic profiles even if they have the same innate intelligence.

Most parents understand this. But if you think you can game the system by sending your kid to a school with few high performing kids, however, no one will stop you.

Poor kids end up with lesser credentials because of less wealth. A wealthy kid would have the same stats and credentials at Justice as they would at Langley. It’s not the school, it’s wealth.

In that scenario you’re implicitly conceding the wealthy kids at Justice are not going to have the same stats and credentials as the wealthy kids at Langley. There are wealthy kids in the Lake Barcroft and Sleepy Hollow areas at Justice, but they aren’t ending up as National Merit Semifinalists and Commended Students very often compared to their Langley counterparts.

Says who? Signed, a Justice parent.

Says FCPS. Justice had 1 NMSF this year. Langley had 23.

Control for wealth and that’s probably equal