Serious question: Why are people afraid to admit privilege?

[Anonymous]

I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privilege is just a loaded word

Apparently it's privilege that instead of going on fancy vacations and spending on cars we lived more frugally so we could afford to live in a better school district

Apparently it's privilege to encourage your kids to work hard, study and get good grades

I just call bs on all of it

Doing those things is common sense and if more folks would do it we wouldn't be having these discussions

Apparently it's privilege to go to school/military/trade/skill/job then get married and TEHN have kids once you can afford them

Again if people did that poverty would almost disappear in a generation

Correct. It's been shown that all one needs to do to avoid being in poverty is finish high school, get a job, and get married before having children. If you do those things in that order, it's not even a matter of "waiting until you can afford them"...as you will be able to afford the children you have in that circumstance without being in poverty. (I understand this is a low bar...most people *want* to live well above the poverty level, and so waiting until you've saved a little money before having kids would be idea, but this isn't addressing that.) This is what will secure people a position ABOVE the poverty line. Just those three things. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

Well, the SAT score in and of itself already tells schools what they need to know about the SES level of the student, b/c the scores closely correlate to the wealth and level of education of their parents.

So I guess what these "adversity" scores will do is just highlight if you are the EXCEPTION in that you are a poor kid who scored exceptionally well (in which case you are quite impressive when compared to the same score earned by a wealthy kid whose parents went to college!) OR, conversely, it will highlight if you are a dumbass wealthy kid with highly-educated parents who earned an abysmally low score--in which case, no excuse for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Privilege is just a loaded word

Apparently it's privilege that instead of going on fancy vacations and spending on cars we lived more frugally so we could afford to live in a better school district

Apparently it's privilege to encourage your kids to work hard, study and get good grades

I just call bs on all of it

Doing those things is common sense and if more folks would do it we wouldn't be having these discussions

Apparently it's privilege to go to school/military/trade/skill/job then get married and TEHN have kids once you can afford them

Again if people did that poverty would almost disappear in a generation

How do people avoid poverty if the minimum wage (which is all you can expect to earn, at least at first, if you have only an HS diploma) will not rent you a two-bedroom in 99 percent of the nation's counties? How do you pay for a trade school if all you're earning is minimum wage?

There are no easy solutions to escaping generational poverty, but your three-step solution above will not suffice. Escaping povery is not ONLY about individual choices. It's also about an economic structure that PERMITS you exit from poverty, and the US doesn't have that right now.


Correct. It's been shown that all one needs to do to avoid being in poverty is finish high school, get a job, and get married before having children. If you do those things in that order, it's not even a matter of "waiting until you can afford them"...as you will be able to afford the children you have in that circumstance without being in poverty. (I understand this is a low bar...most people *want* to live well above the poverty level, and so waiting until you've saved a little money before having kids would be idea, but this isn't addressing that.) This is what will secure people a position ABOVE the poverty line. Just those three things. Period.

[Anonymous]

I'm a first generation immigrant from a poor Eastern European country. I'm also white and beautiful. I had minimal struggles despite being a poor immigrant only because I'm white and beautiful. I'm saying minimal, not none, because the vast majority of my managers have been mediocre white men with low intellect, degrees from podunk universities, with no communication or writing skills. Forget about leadership skills.
Georgetown came out with a great study showing that smarter kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are worse off than white kids with lower intellect.
The trend continues, at least at my work, where I advocated for hiring some amazing candidates with proven leadership skills, MIT degrees (I'm in tech). So far, for the last 3 years, we've been hiring only mediocre white men as they show the greatest potential for teamwork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fck off. I worked for my "privilege". My parents were the first in my family to go to college. I resent this being counted against my kids for purely political reasons.

Case in point

Because it’s used stereotypically as an attack. See prior post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked by how many people are upset of the SAT adversity score. They do not want to admit the privileges that their children having growing up in a nice school district, safe school, etc. These are all great things! Everyone wants these things for their kids but sadly, many kids do not have access to these resources. Why are people so afraid to own that privilege and be proud of it while also working toward the same future for other kids? What are you afraid of? Honestly if you kid doesn't get into HPY and goes to say, UVA- what do you think will happen? Do you really think their future is lost? Are you afraid they will end up on the streets?

Seriously please help me understand...

Because everyone is FOR diversity and access until it means restricting their OWN access!

Case in point....ask any white college kid who is protesting and marching alongside as an "ally" for under-respresented groups if he/she would just go ahead and step aside and give his/her slot to a student who is equally deserving in merit. You know...b/c of diversity.

They want OTHERS to give up their slots. But do not want to give up THEIR OWN!

Exactly. And this is why Biden is running for president instead of stepping aside and raising money to help fund the Kamala Harris or the Cory Booker campaign--both of whom are just as qualified and capable as he is in serving as president and working to enact policy that advances diversity and opportunity. But similar to most white people, he's all for promoting diversity, but he won't give up his own chair at the table to do it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a first generation immigrant from a poor Eastern European country. I'm also white and beautiful. I had minimal struggles despite being a poor immigrant only because I'm white and beautiful. I'm saying minimal, not none, because the vast majority of my managers have been mediocre white men with low intellect, degrees from podunk universities, with no communication or writing skills. Forget about leadership skills.
Georgetown came out with a great study showing that smarter kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are worse off than white kids with lower intellect.
The trend continues, at least at my work, where I advocated for hiring some amazing candidates with proven leadership skills, MIT degrees (I'm in tech). So far, for the last 3 years, we've been hiring only mediocre white men as they show the greatest potential for teamwork.

I guarantee you that nobody but you thinks you are that beautiful, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

ha yeah I know. I'm just waiting for all the SJW to move to the crappy areas. That would fix the problem too but surprise no one does it. Seems like SJW like to hold on to "privilege" aka do what's best for their children just like everyone else. So to all the SJW f off lolz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a first generation immigrant from a poor Eastern European country. I'm also white and beautiful. I had minimal struggles despite being a poor immigrant only because I'm white and beautiful. I'm saying minimal, not none, because the vast majority of my managers have been mediocre white men with low intellect, degrees from podunk universities, with no communication or writing skills. Forget about leadership skills.
Georgetown came out with a great study showing that smarter kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are worse off than white kids with lower intellect.
The trend continues, at least at my work, where I advocated for hiring some amazing candidates with proven leadership skills, MIT degrees (I'm in tech). So far, for the last 3 years, we've been hiring only mediocre white men as they show the greatest potential for teamwork.

UGH! The "teamwork" angle. For most white men, Teamwork just means piggybacking off of other people's ideas while they shirk the blame/responsibility and claim all the credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a first generation immigrant from a poor Eastern European country. I'm also white and beautiful. I had minimal struggles despite being a poor immigrant only because I'm white and beautiful. I'm saying minimal, not none, because the vast majority of my managers have been mediocre white men with low intellect, degrees from podunk universities, with no communication or writing skills. Forget about leadership skills.
Georgetown came out with a great study showing that smarter kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are worse off than white kids with lower intellect.
The trend continues, at least at my work, where I advocated for hiring some amazing candidates with proven leadership skills, MIT degrees (I'm in tech). So far, for the last 3 years, we've been hiring only mediocre white men as they show the greatest potential for teamwork.

I guarantee you that nobody but you thinks you are that beautiful, sweetie.

I think she's just being honest; attractiveness confers enormous benefits, and it's silly to think that it doesn't. You're more likely to get hired, more likely to be paid a higher salary, etc. etc. It means privilege, and she's admitting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a first generation immigrant from a poor Eastern European country. I'm also white and beautiful. I had minimal struggles despite being a poor immigrant only because I'm white and beautiful. I'm saying minimal, not none, because the vast majority of my managers have been mediocre white men with low intellect, degrees from podunk universities, with no communication or writing skills. Forget about leadership skills.
Georgetown came out with a great study showing that smarter kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are worse off than white kids with lower intellect.
The trend continues, at least at my work, where I advocated for hiring some amazing candidates with proven leadership skills, MIT degrees (I'm in tech). So far, for the last 3 years, we've been hiring only mediocre white men as they show the greatest potential for teamwork.

I guarantee you that nobody but you thinks you are that beautiful, sweetie.

What the hell is your problem, pal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

ha yeah I know. I'm just waiting for all the SJW to move to the crappy areas. That would fix the problem too but surprise no one does it. Seems like SJW like to hold on to "privilege" aka do what's best for their children just like everyone else. So to all the SJW f off lolz

Such an easy term to throw around. Has it never occurred to you that there are plenty of progressives in low-income areas as well?