Why racial segregation is unacceptable but socioeconomic segregation is ok in private schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

If you take all financial aid and give to low income families and then the rest of families pay full tuition that is budget neutral. Not sure why upper income families really need financial aid at all.

You really don’t understand any of this. There are zero low income families to begin with. It takes more than free tuition to make them excel at an elite private school. Affording stable transportation, extracurriculars, tutoring, sports, uniforms, etc.

The middle class families really cannot afford school without financial aid. So you would be excluding them if you remove that. And these are the financial aid students who are most likely to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

Truly low income kids are just too expensive. You can provide full tuition, but then they also need stable housing, transportation, meals, etc. Who pays for their required technology, extracurricular costs, and tutoring if needed? It easily becomes a multiple of just the full tuition. Raising kids is expensive and the parents need significant resources even without paying any tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

Truly low income kids are just too expensive. You can provide full tuition, but then they also need stable housing, transportation, meals, etc. Who pays for their required technology, extracurricular costs, and tutoring if needed? It easily becomes a multiple of just the full tuition. Raising kids is expensive and the parents need significant resources even without paying any tuition.

Luckily good universities don't think like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

If you take all financial aid and give to low income families and then the rest of families pay full tuition that is budget neutral. Not sure why upper income families really need financial aid at all.

You really don’t understand any of this. There are zero low income families to begin with. It takes more than free tuition to make them excel at an elite private school. Affording stable transportation, extracurriculars, tutoring, sports, uniforms, etc.

The middle class families really cannot afford school without financial aid. So you would be excluding them if you remove that. And these are the financial aid students who are most likely to succeed.

So I guess socioeconomic segregation is desirable in your view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

If you take all financial aid and give to low income families and then the rest of families pay full tuition that is budget neutral. Not sure why upper income families really need financial aid at all.

You really don’t understand any of this. There are zero low income families to begin with. It takes more than free tuition to make them excel at an elite private school. Affording stable transportation, extracurriculars, tutoring, sports, uniforms, etc.

The middle class families really cannot afford school without financial aid. So you would be excluding them if you remove that. And these are the financial aid students who are most likely to succeed.

So I guess socioeconomic segregation is desirable in your view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

Truly low income kids are just too expensive. You can provide full tuition, but then they also need stable housing, transportation, meals, etc. Who pays for their required technology, extracurricular costs, and tutoring if needed? It easily becomes a multiple of just the full tuition. Raising kids is expensive and the parents need significant resources even without paying any tuition.

Luckily good universities don't think like you.

The student loan program that college students use does not exist for K-12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

Truly low income kids are just too expensive. You can provide full tuition, but then they also need stable housing, transportation, meals, etc. Who pays for their required technology, extracurricular costs, and tutoring if needed? It easily becomes a multiple of just the full tuition. Raising kids is expensive and the parents need significant resources even without paying any tuition.

Luckily good universities don't think like you.

The student loan program that college students use does not exist for K-12.

And also universities like Harvard prioritize financial aid to low income students, not upper middle class kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

Truly low income kids are just too expensive. You can provide full tuition, but then they also need stable housing, transportation, meals, etc. Who pays for their required technology, extracurricular costs, and tutoring if needed? It easily becomes a multiple of just the full tuition. Raising kids is expensive and the parents need significant resources even without paying any tuition.

Luckily good universities don't think like you.

The student loan program that college students use does not exist for K-12.

And also universities like Harvard prioritize financial aid to low income students, not upper middle class kids.

They have the funds to support it. So do the wealthy boarding high schools. However local day schools have very limited funding. If you look at the endowment sizes there is no comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the same troll who starts threads on the injustices of private school under the guise of being "new to the area" and just asking a loaded question. Then when anyone disagrees she responds with sarcasm. Try to ignore her

Could be a troll, but the question remains valid. Why do schools accept socioeconomic segregation. Is that consistent with the goals of social justice and inclusion that they preach? Maybe, but it doesn’t look so.

It's not a smart question. Most private schools don't have a goal of social justice and inclusion, they have a goal of high quality academic education in a low conflict environment. There is no economic model that would work for this goal with a broad SES community, they need way too much tuition money to make it work. Private entities, whether schools or stores or clubs, are there to provide a good or service for a fee and those who can't pay are rarely included. This is how capitalism works. We're also not giving away Porches in a lottery, people have to pay for them.

But still there is the consensus to avoid racial segregation in expensive schools with the goal of inclusiveness (most schools publish their numbers). Why not having the same goal with socioeconomic inclusion. Are poor people more violent and ignorant ? That’s how people thought about non-white people 50 years ago. I think there are merits in broadening the concept of diversity, even for expensive schools.

Who's going to pay for it? And don't say the governement because we are not taking more money away from public schools. That is a non starter.

You can start by switching the financial aid recipients from upper middle class families to lower class families. That would be budget neutral to schools.

How would that be budget neutral? The lower class families would each need more financial aid, and additional supports, so then you end up giving aid to fewer students. This could easily reduce the number of financial aid recipients in half if you want to remain budget neutral. Financially it doesn't make sense.

Wealth is relative and these middle class families are very much on the low end at these schools. Throwing lower class families in there is just cruel. They would be in an environment where their classmates attend luxury vacations, buy expensive clothing, drive nice cars, can afford to do sports, and so on. It just doesn't make sense.

Low income kids will suffer in an affluent school, hence it is better to exclude them. Very logical.

Truly low income kids are just too expensive. You can provide full tuition, but then they also need stable housing, transportation, meals, etc. Who pays for their required technology, extracurricular costs, and tutoring if needed? It easily becomes a multiple of just the full tuition. Raising kids is expensive and the parents need significant resources even without paying any tuition.

Luckily good universities don't think like you.

The student loan program that college students use does not exist for K-12.

And also universities like Harvard prioritize financial aid to low income students, not upper middle class kids.

They have the funds to support it. So do the wealthy boarding high schools. However local day schools have very limited funding. If you look at the endowment sizes there is no comparison.

And also financial aid is allocated to families that don’t really need it. I barely see any low income families in private schools.

[Anonymous]

Nobody wants a u shaped income curve in their school. That’s not good for anyone. Financial aid isn’t a gift to the “deserving.” It’s the way the school buys the best student body it can (including but not limited to economic diversity)

[Anonymous]

They should make the nonelites like personal butlers to the elite kids. It would be like a work study teaching the street urchins that freedom is not free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am new to dc and I noticed the stark difference between the two types of segregation. Private schools are happy if they are racially diverse, but not so happy to be diverse in terms of socioeconomic groups. If find this attitude a bit schizophrenic. Do you think this is ok?

I think it’s pretty simple, racial segregation is viewed as a uniquely pernicious practice, both for contingent historical reasons and because basically everybody thinks that intentional racial discrimination is fundamentally unfair. A lack of socioeconomic diversity, however, is structurally inherent if your business model is “we’re going to charge a huge amount of money for something that is also available free of charge.” The great majority of people who see that as a viable option are going to be those for whom money is not a problem. I also think most of these schools do more than lip service in trying to find high talent kids from low SES communities—it adds value to the school community and they like to preen and take credit for such efforts, and they would, I think, do more of it if more low SES parents had any idea that, given a sufficiently talented kid, the schools can be flexible on money. I grew up low SES and it never crossed my mind that financial aid was even an option for high-end privates, and I assume there are lots of low SES parents of 140 IQ kids who have no idea they could apply to high end privates with reasonable prospects for major financial aid. Also travel logistics can be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am new to dc and I noticed the stark difference between the two types of segregation. Private schools are happy if they are racially diverse, but not so happy to be diverse in terms of socioeconomic groups. If find this attitude a bit schizophrenic. Do you think this is ok?

I think it’s pretty simple, racial segregation is viewed as a uniquely pernicious practice, both for contingent historical reasons and because basically everybody thinks that intentional racial discrimination is fundamentally unfair. A lack of socioeconomic diversity, however, is structurally inherent if your business model is “we’re going to charge a huge amount of money for something that is also available free of charge.” The great majority of people who see that as a viable option are going to be those for whom money is not a problem. I also think most of these schools do more than lip service in trying to find high talent kids from low SES communities—it adds value to the school community and they like to preen and take credit for such efforts, and they would, I think, do more of it if more low SES parents had any idea that, given a sufficiently talented kid, the schools can be flexible on money. I grew up low SES and it never crossed my mind that financial aid was even an option for high-end privates, and I assume there are lots of low SES parents of 140 IQ kids who have no idea they could apply to high end privates with reasonable prospects for major financial aid. Also travel logistics can be an issue.

Why shouldn't the lower IQ kids get a shot first? The smart ones will probably figure out how to get ahead while the lower IQ need all the help they can get?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am new to dc and I noticed the stark difference between the two types of segregation. Private schools are happy if they are racially diverse, but not so happy to be diverse in terms of socioeconomic groups. If find this attitude a bit schizophrenic. Do you think this is ok?

I think it’s pretty simple, racial segregation is viewed as a uniquely pernicious practice, both for contingent historical reasons and because basically everybody thinks that intentional racial discrimination is fundamentally unfair. A lack of socioeconomic diversity, however, is structurally inherent if your business model is “we’re going to charge a huge amount of money for something that is also available free of charge.” The great majority of people who see that as a viable option are going to be those for whom money is not a problem. I also think most of these schools do more than lip service in trying to find high talent kids from low SES communities—it adds value to the school community and they like to preen and take credit for such efforts, and they would, I think, do more of it if more low SES parents had any idea that, given a sufficiently talented kid, the schools can be flexible on money. I grew up low SES and it never crossed my mind that financial aid was even an option for high-end privates, and I assume there are lots of low SES parents of 140 IQ kids who have no idea they could apply to high end privates with reasonable prospects for major financial aid. Also travel logistics can be an issue.

Why shouldn't the lower IQ kids get a shot first? The smart ones will probably figure out how to get ahead while the lower IQ need all the help they can get?

Judging by your post, you need a school like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should make the nonelites like personal butlers to the elite kids. It would be like a work study teaching the street urchins that freedom is not free.

+1 why wait for them to grow up and enter the work force? Let them learn from a young age.