Are you a "Dream Hoarder"? I am, apparently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the unhinged Asian poster - why are you so convinced AAs are taking all your spots? Why don't you rail against legacies and athletic admits too? What about big donor's kids who can get in with mediocre grades? First gen kids of all races get preference too, not just AA kids. Also, you conveniently ignore the positive biases that favor Asians. Research has consistently shown that teachers often assume Asian kids are smart and AA kids are not as advanced even if their actual work shows otherwise. You may be surprised to learn that I am Asian myself. I am just tired of the casual and lazy racism that many of my fellow Asians openly express.

You have reading comprehension problems. I didn't say AAs are taking all Asian spots. Clearly, in spite of this adverse treatment, Asians as a group continue to succeed in academics and life in general. Legacy admissions in a public university, I have a problem with, a private one is none of my business. Athleticism is developmental excellence of another sort, so I don't see a problem with this at all. Per your remark about biases for Asians, I completely agree - the application process should be completely anonymous. In fact I applaud the trend of professors who only grade student work based on a student number, not knowing at all who that student is. Why would I be surprised that you are Asian? Asians can't be mis-informed? Ignorance doesn't care about skin color or race. Sure, you are tired of all the "casual and lazy racism" that Asians openly express, put feet where your mouth is and move your kids to a predominately AA school. That slight hesitation going through your mind even while pondering this suggestion theoretically is that same "casual and lazy racism" you are deriding other Asians for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I can't emphasize this point strongly enough," he replies, "but I don't think we should treat our own children as social-policy interventions. And poor parents, by the way, if you go to them and say, 'I'm not [paying for tutoring] because I'm egalitarian,' they'd say, 'What the hell is wrong with you?'" He does offer some suggestions to address the imbalance: Match the amount spent on enrichment experiences for your child to assist a needier child; find a family to "adopt," and invest in their children's educations; or follow the lead of the affluent public school that his kids attend—for every dollar the PTA raises, the group gives 50 cents to a low-income DC school. "

+1
LOT of defensiveness in the replies on this one! Many of you know it is not right - the problem is that all your peers are doing it too so your stuck. I agree with the points above about acknowledging that there is a system in place helping your kids (that includes you) and disadvantageous MC and poor kids. And so thinking about what you can do in addition to help rebalance things a bit.

I would add - AND raising your kids to realize they had legs up along their way and did not "make it all on their own" so certainly have an obligation to be chipping in and helping out those that did not get those same advantages / opportunities. Way too little acknowledgement of this.

I think charity is an excellent thing. I hope everyone engages in charitable contributions. We should all try to help people around us, so that everyone moves forward at a faster pace. Charity doesn't necessarily hold back the person that is doing the giving. However, it's wrong to say that it is an obligation. If you deem it an obligation, that means there is no reason for charity, the transfer of wealth is simply owed from one person to another. This breeds contempt from both the receiver and the giver. The receiver, when made to believe that he is entitled to the payment, will continue to cry inequality. The giver, when forced to give the payment, will have lost the emotional reward that is normally associated with charitable giving, along with some of the motivation to continue to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the unhinged Asian poster - why are you so convinced AAs are taking all your spots? Why don't you rail against legacies and athletic admits too? What about big donor's kids who can get in with mediocre grades? First gen kids of all races get preference too, not just AA kids. Also, you conveniently ignore the positive biases that favor Asians. Research has consistently shown that teachers often assume Asian kids are smart and AA kids are not as advanced even if their actual work shows otherwise. You may be surprised to learn that I am Asian myself. I am just tired of the casual and lazy racism that many of my fellow Asians openly express.

You have reading comprehension problems. I didn't say AAs are taking all Asian spots. Clearly, in spite of this adverse treatment, Asians as a group continue to succeed in academics and life in general. Legacy admissions in a public university, I have a problem with, a private one is none of my business. Athleticism is developmental excellence of another sort, so I don't see a problem with this at all. Per your remark about biases for Asians, I completely agree - the application process should be completely anonymous. In fact I applaud the trend of professors who only grade student work based on a student number, not knowing at all who that student is. Why would I be surprised that you are Asian? Asians can't be mis-informed? Ignorance doesn't care about skin color or race. Sure, you are tired of all the "casual and lazy racism" that Asians openly express, put feet where your mouth is and move your kids to a predominately AA school. That slight hesitation going through your mind even while pondering this suggestion theoretically is that same "casual and lazy racism" you are deriding other Asians for.

+1. I hope bleeding heart PP's kid loses a college spot to a less qualified AA. I bet we'd see her racism come out full force.

[Anonymous]

I think that game is pretty much the worst way the author could have illustrated the issue, assuming his goal was to get people not just aware of it, but actually engaged in addressing it. All he's done is tell a bunch of people that yeah, they're privileged, but you'd better not do anything to address the inequality or you're setting your child up for failure. I donate to my alma mater every year, in part because I'm aware of the impact long-term commitment to the school (even if you're not the top donor) by alums can have on admissions for their children. Every year, though, I direct that my donation be used to fund scholarships in order to help other kids who don't have the advantages mine do. There is a middle ground between ruthlessly promoting your own child at the expense of others and refusing to help them at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's not what you know its who you know.

The updated version of this "it's not who you know, it's who knows you."

x1000000

[Anonymous]

I'm going to do whatever decreases the likelihood that I have a child living with me when they're 30.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you go to the education forum you will find posters willing to sacrifice the quality of their child's education in the name of diversity

Are those SJWs willing to take their families and move to SE or PG County in the name of diversity as well? Somehow I doubt it...

They have the same amount of dedication to their cause as people who talked about leaving the US if the election didn't go their way.

Wait, so, sending your kid to a diverse school that people on DCUM think is subpar in the name of principles isn't enough? If people don't move to the least white neighborhoods in the D.C. area, they're hypocrites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From this interview with the author http://www.elle.com/culture/books/a46121/dream-hoarders-feature/

"I can't emphasize this point strongly enough," he replies, "but I don't think we should treat our own children as social-policy interventions. And poor parents, by the way, if you go to them and say, 'I'm not [paying for tutoring] because I'm egalitarian,' they'd say, 'What the hell is wrong with you?'" He does offer some suggestions to address the imbalance: Match the amount spent on enrichment experiences for your child to assist a needier child; find a family to "adopt," and invest in their children's educations; or follow the lead of the affluent public school that his kids attend—for every dollar the PTA raises, the group gives 50 cents to a low-income DC school.

He is talking out both sides of his mouth. If he is establishing the cause-effect that demonstrates the active suppression of one class by another, the only solution is to combat that suppression. If he further argues that the suppression is systemic, then the combating action must also be systemic - a macro program to "make things right". It's disingenuous to argue for the existence of systemic suppression of one class by another, and then leave it by saying "but lets depend on individual action". Individual action is how we are here in the first place.

Very well said. PP. Agree completely.

I'm late to this thread, but I've been wanting to drop in and post something similar to what PP said (much better than I would have).

I found the "game" in the OP's link silly, because it doesn't distinguish between not actively shutting out poor people through opposing a housing project and introducing your kid to a friend of yours who has a job. It's obvious the cost-benefit of the former. Maybe your kid will have a somewhat degraded school experience (maybe not, and maybe they'll meet some really cool new people) vs. maybe your rich kid won't get a job and some other rich kid whose parents are well-connected will.

I thought it would be more subtle and point out some of the less obvious ways in which privilege benefits people without just dismissing them as selfish out-of-hand. It is obvious how keeping poorer kids out of good schools hurts them. It's less obvious how using connections to get your kid a job interview does...and I think he oversimplifies by suggesting that using a connection is somehow holding down poor people instead of just being another person caught up in the winning side of an unfair system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I can't emphasize this point strongly enough," he replies, "but I don't think we should treat our own children as social-policy interventions. And poor parents, by the way, if you go to them and say, 'I'm not [paying for tutoring] because I'm egalitarian,' they'd say, 'What the hell is wrong with you?'" He does offer some suggestions to address the imbalance: Match the amount spent on enrichment experiences for your child to assist a needier child; find a family to "adopt," and invest in their children's educations; or follow the lead of the affluent public school that his kids attend—for every dollar the PTA raises, the group gives 50 cents to a low-income DC school. "

+1
LOT of defensiveness in the replies on this one! Many of you know it is not right - the problem is that all your peers are doing it too so your stuck. I agree with the points above about acknowledging that there is a system in place helping your kids (that includes you) and disadvantageous MC and poor kids. And so thinking about what you can do in addition to help rebalance things a bit.

I would add - AND raising your kids to realize they had legs up along their way and did not "make it all on their own" so certainly have an obligation to be chipping in and helping out those that did not get those same advantages / opportunities. Way too little acknowledgement of this.

+1000. My parents were the type of people this board wouldn't call wealthy, but who really are (lawyer/school counselor), and I had a ton of advantages that most kids didn't (excellent public schools, legacy admission to the Ivy League, tuition paid for by parents, and family connections that helped me get introduced to recruiters for an internship and for my first job). It would be easy for me to pretend that my own work and skills got me where I am now in my career and life, but it would also be a lie. When my own kids are, no doubt, successful themselves, I will feel as if I raised them wrong if they don't realize how lucky they were to come from the background they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that game is pretty much the worst way the author could have illustrated the issue, assuming his goal was to get people not just aware of it, but actually engaged in addressing it. All he's done is tell a bunch of people that yeah, they're privileged, but you'd better not do anything to address the inequality or you're setting your child up for failure. I donate to my alma mater every year, in part because I'm aware of the impact long-term commitment to the school (even if you're not the top donor) by alums can have on admissions for their children. Every year, though, I direct that my donation be used to fund scholarships in order to help other kids who don't have the advantages mine do. There is a middle ground between ruthlessly promoting your own child at the expense of others and refusing to help them at all.

Very well said. The game really irked me, because it seems counter-productive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that game is pretty much the worst way the author could have illustrated the issue, assuming his goal was to get people not just aware of it, but actually engaged in addressing it. All he's done is tell a bunch of people that yeah, they're privileged, but you'd better not do anything to address the inequality or you're setting your child up for failure. I donate to my alma mater every year, in part because I'm aware of the impact long-term commitment to the school (even if you're not the top donor) by alums can have on admissions for their children. Every year, though, I direct that my donation be used to fund scholarships in order to help other kids who don't have the advantages mine do. There is a middle ground between ruthlessly promoting your own child at the expense of others and refusing to help them at all.

The nature of the world is not fair, this is reality. Not all grass seeds sprout in the sun, or next to a good water source. Some cubs are born to a sick lioness that is unable to teach them to hunt. Humans are not plants and lions - we are a higher order social animal and we feel empathy and have compassion for the suffering of others. However it is foolish and idiotic to posit that the inherent lack of fairness and equality is somehow someone's fault. We can all work together to make the world a bit more equal for everyone, not because the government decrees it to be so, but that it's the right thing for individuals to do. People on the whole are kind and caring to others. Sure there is also wickedness, and we legislate to control it. But the moment you start legislating kindness, it turns.

[Anonymous]

I grew up very poor with no connections. I was able to overcome this and now I am in that top 20%.

I am ABSOLUTELY a dream hoarder for my kids and do what I can to give them all the opportunities I can. There is no reason to be apologetic about it or to deny it's real.

It's important to do what you can for the less advantaged, too. I do think it is terrible how disadvantaged poor children are but I'm not going to disadvantage my own kids to make it seem more "fair." I will play the game because I don't want it to be as hard for them as it was for me. Plus, I got damn lucky. Plenty of people work as hard as I did, and the stars don't align for them.

I do find that most people who came from the upper 20% are remarkably clueless about poor people. Most don't even know any actual poor people. I make sure my kids spend plenty of time with my family back home -- who live very different lives -- so they can be more grounded. Not too many of my kids' friends have ever been in a house trailer, and certainly not one belonging to family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that game is pretty much the worst way the author could have illustrated the issue, assuming his goal was to get people not just aware of it, but actually engaged in addressing it. All he's done is tell a bunch of people that yeah, they're privileged, but you'd better not do anything to address the inequality or you're setting your child up for failure. I donate to my alma mater every year, in part because I'm aware of the impact long-term commitment to the school (even if you're not the top donor) by alums can have on admissions for their children. Every year, though, I direct that my donation be used to fund scholarships in order to help other kids who don't have the advantages mine do. There is a middle ground between ruthlessly promoting your own child at the expense of others and refusing to help them at all.

The nature of the world is not fair, this is reality. Not all grass seeds sprout in the sun, or next to a good water source. Some cubs are born to a sick lioness that is unable to teach them to hunt. Humans are not plants and lions - we are a higher order social animal and we feel empathy and have compassion for the suffering of others. However it is foolish and idiotic to posit that the inherent lack of fairness and equality is somehow someone's fault. We can all work together to make the world a bit more equal for everyone, not because the government decrees it to be so, but that it's the right thing for individuals to do. People on the whole are kind and caring to others. Sure there is also wickedness, and we legislate to control it. But the moment you start legislating kindness, it turns.

What do you mean by legislating kindness? Are you talking about affirmative action, non-discrimination, or equal opportunity employment laws? Or things like WIC and school lunches for poor kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up very poor with no connections. I was able to overcome this and now I am in that top 20%.

I am ABSOLUTELY a dream hoarder for my kids and do what I can to give them all the opportunities I can. There is no reason to be apologetic about it or to deny it's real.

It's important to do what you can for the less advantaged, too. I do think it is terrible how disadvantaged poor children are but I'm not going to disadvantage my own kids to make it seem more "fair." I will play the game because I don't want it to be as hard for them as it was for me. Plus, I got damn lucky. Plenty of people work as hard as I did, and the stars don't align for them.

I do find that most people who came from the upper 20% are remarkably clueless about poor people. Most don't even know any actual poor people. I make sure my kids spend plenty of time with my family back home -- who live very different lives -- so they can be more grounded. Not too many of my kids' friends have ever been in a house trailer, and certainly not one belonging to family.

+1,000,000

Besides luck what allowed you to make it

Then the argument should be what is the role of government in making this happen if any with the knowledge that any policy will be exploited

Personally I think the DC lottery system is a great model. Some advantage for inbound (capitalism) and some lottery aspect (socialism) Going to one extreme or the other helps noone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up very poor with no connections. I was able to overcome this and now I am in that top 20%.

I am ABSOLUTELY a dream hoarder for my kids and do what I can to give them all the opportunities I can. There is no reason to be apologetic about it or to deny it's real.

It's important to do what you can for the less advantaged, too. I do think it is terrible how disadvantaged poor children are but I'm not going to disadvantage my own kids to make it seem more "fair." I will play the game because I don't want it to be as hard for them as it was for me. Plus, I got damn lucky. Plenty of people work as hard as I did, and the stars don't align for them.

I do find that most people who came from the upper 20% are remarkably clueless about poor people. Most don't even know any actual poor people. I make sure my kids spend plenty of time with my family back home -- who live very different lives -- so they can be more grounded. Not too many of my kids' friends have ever been in a house trailer, and certainly not one belonging to family.

+1,000,000

Besides luck what allowed you to make it

Then the argument should be what is the role of government in making this happen if any with the knowledge that any policy will be exploited

Personally I think the DC lottery system is a great model. Some advantage for inbound (capitalism) and some lottery aspect (socialism) Going to one extreme or the other helps noone

I am the PP you quoted. Besides luck, I have a strong family who prioritized education and hard work. Most of our family dinners involved breaking out the Encyclopedia Britannica at least once.

My brother teaches back home and these kids...the families are a wreck. No dad in the picture, raised by elderly grandparents, mom on drugs, mom just a loser who doesn't give a shit about them....what kind of a chance do kids like that have? I think we should not just focus on education but do what we can to rebuild the American lower-class family. It's in disarray and you can see upward mobility crumble as it disappears. just my two cents.