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

[Anonymous]

The game is silly and shallow.

The game should be called Confirmation Bias - I am guessing that you either answer the questions 'correctly' and are not a dream hoarder, or you answer them incorrectly and are, in fact, a dream hoarder.

It's been a long time since I saw a game that was written exclusively with IF/Then statements in BASIC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Working on alternatives to mass incarceration is one thing. It's an example of policy that was well-meaning but really has multiple negative outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

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

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

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

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

It depends on the kind of diversity. We live in a solidly middle class, inching toward affluent, neighborhood with lots of educated people from all over the world. I like having my son in a class full of children from everywhere. All the kids, though, have educated parents who value education. So it's both diverse and monochrome at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

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

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

Maybe "quality" doesn't have a one size fits all definition. Why are people so defensive about not prioritizing diversity in schools? It's bizarre. Send your kid to a majority-white school, I don't care. You shouldn't care if I do think diversity is an advantage.

[Anonymous]

I would be mortified to try to game the admissions process at a top college if my child didn't have a decent SAT score. My DH and I both got into top colleges entirely on our own, and I don't think that the really top colleges would take a kid with a low SAT score just because his/her parent was an alum. (When I was in law school, a friend (a Harvard alum) had a younger sister who was applying to Harvard from one of DC's top privates. She was NOT admitted despite having a good SAT score and generations of legacies. Harvard did call the parents directly to tell the family the news, rather than having the daughter learn it from a rejection letter.

And I would also be mortified to ask any friends to give my child an internship. I would be too embarrassed to ask. I will help my kids to identify and apply to internships (by reading resumes and essays etc), but will not make calls to contacts.

On the topic of low-income housing in my nice neighborhood, I am OK with it as long as it's done nicely. (In our neighborhood, MoCo proposed to tear down a neighborhood library to build a low-income high rise, which was not well-received by the community.)

[Anonymous]

PP, you're an exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My take away from this is that there are all of this little social cues and social capital that we all take for granted that ends up keeping poorer people out of certain things.

The article David Brooks wrote resonated with me. I am going through the college selection/application process now with my kid and it actually turns my stomach to think about all of the ways disadvantaged kids are shut out and all of the hurdles that you have to cross. And how we get sidetracked by stuff like affirmative action. Here are some of the challenges I can think of:

-living in a neighborhood with good schools and good guidance counselors and college application support
-being the academic track to take AP classes or the right classes
-Being able to afford multiple AP tests
-Being able to afford multiple ACT/SAT tests
-Having solid academic support or being able to afford tutors or have the social capital to know where to go to get help at low cost
-Understanding the college application process, deadlines, financial aid process
-Having the confidence to even apply for top schools
-Knowing how to connect with admissions officers
-Being able to visit schools

Obviously everyone wants the best for their kid, but I never really thought about how I am contributing and participating in this system that actually leaves others behind. For me this is just one of those conversations that is food-for-thought and has given me a lot to think about. I am also Black so thinking about this is actually torture.

No, it's about priorities. To each of your points:

1. School performance is largely dependent on parental involvement. Which of our surrounding counties has the worst schools? PG. Go take a look at the school threads for the counties, and see what the degree of parental involvement for PG is compared against the other counties. Don't blame the teachers and guidance counselors - they are not substitutes for parenting.

2. Regarding academic track and AP classes: see #1

3. Again a matter of life priorities. The reduced fee for AP test is $53, I refuse to believe that a family cannot find $53 to take the AP test.

4. Life priorities: it's a $57 test, and there are fee waivers available for low income families. The money barrier simply is not there.

5. Academic support is again a family function. I can see the point about tutors, but one does not need tutors to be successful.

6. We all have to learn the application process, I don't see this is especially difficult for people who are in the lower SES. Are you arguing that they are less capable?

7. Confidence is again a combination of upbringing and personal achievement. I think the masses have swung to far on the confidence scale. Everyone thinks they are special.

8. Helping your child develop inter-personal skills is a parental function.

9. You don't need to visit schools, and it affords you no special preference when applying to the schools. It's pretty much a vacation.

I am Asian and there are plenty of poor Asian immigrants. My oldest has a classmate - good kid, very polite, very confident, popular among his peers. His parents are blue collar workers, one is a cashier and the other one is a restaurant cook. They don't buy fancy clothes, no fancy hair cuts, old Japanese beater cars, they bought into an affordable corner of the good school pyramid, and send their kid to many of the tutoring workshops that are popular with Asians. That kid was always in the GT program and currently has better grades than mine in the same classes. I don't know if he is going on a college tour, my guess is no, but I wouldn't be surprised if his parents scrimped and saved to make that happen. He is kind, happy, and very hard working, just like his parents. Yet he knows that despite all his efforts and those of his parents, a college admission officer will favor a black student over him because of his race. You telling me this is a more fair state of affairs?

No it's not a fair state of affairs. What you are overlooking, though, is that calling that family "poor Asian immigrant" doesn't tell the whole story and doesn't put that kid on the same step as a poor black kid. The Asian family, poor though they are, is helped along by the culture that prizes academic achievement and hard work. Don't underestimate the importance of cultural norms.

It all goes back to AAs and Hispanics needing to grow a culture of academic achievement and hard intellectual work, doesn't it?

Why did I know when I opened this thread that this poster would at some point in fact this thread with this kind of ignorance racism and ugliness .
It is not a fact, it is not true that black people and Hispanic people do not value education that it is a cultural norm to eschew education and intellect.
Now the poster to hang them responding he's gonna come back with some bullshit stats some strawman argument but I'm done I'm not saying anything I'm not arguing, not debating, not trying to convince them because there people whose life's energy is spent on demonizing and demeaning other people and there is no talking to that .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

I was the LOL poster laughing at the poster saying everything is level .

[Anonymous]

Robert Samuelson has a column in today's Wapo about this book, debunking Reeve's assertions. One pertinent fact is that two thirds of the upper middle class that Reeve's believes are dream hoarding migrate out, mostly down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Legislating kindness is enforcing by law an action that would otherwise be considered charity. Imagine if every year instead of your school having a coat drive, that you were told that you MUST purchase a coat for the homeless as required by law, and that there would be a fine and possibly jail time if you do not comply. Affirmative action is not kindness. Charity is when someone shares a resource he has with someone else. Have you known anyone who would give up their spot in college admissions as an act of Charity? Discrimination and equal opportunity employment is not charity either. It's not an act of kindness to dismiss someone's skin color or any other protected class as a barrier to do good work. The federal government has no business overseeing programs like WIC and school lunches for poor kids. Local governments can put these programs in place as they see fit, where they can vote on such spending. By the way, I think all school lunches should be free, as it is essential to the education of our kids, not because it's an act of kindness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting seeing the contrast here vs other forums on this site

I think its interesting that on the financial forum people are much more logical about taking all advantages

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

In terms of practical solutions I think the education lottery system DC has is a good solution. It mixes still having premiums for being in a higher cost of living area via inbound preferences with giving others a shot regardless of income via the lottery component. The alternative is having the current capitalism system of giant achievement gaps but a socialist system of pure lottery or bussing won't help either because the upper middle class will find new ways to get a leg-up via privates or moving altogether.

I think the people in the public schools forums are justifying their decisions to go public instead of private by saying that 'diversity' is an advantage. There's no advantage to diversity when it comes to education.

Maybe "quality" doesn't have a one size fits all definition. Why are people so defensive about not prioritizing diversity in schools? It's bizarre. Send your kid to a majority-white school, I don't care. You shouldn't care if I do think diversity is an advantage.

How so ironic! Listen to yourself, when offered a different opinion, you are simply dismissing it and chastise the other PP for even expressing a different idea. This perfectly illustrates the point that the PP was making, that your idea of diversity based on skin color is shallow and therefore has no advantage; and that your preference for superficial diversity comes at the expense of true diversity, which is a diversity of ideals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be a dream hoarder if we had kids, but we're upper middle class and child-free. I guess our enormous tax bill and lack of resource consumption means we're contributing.

What a load of shit this is.

Of course it's crap. Just because I help my child succeed doesn't mean it's a zero sum game and no poorer children can succeed.

I get so sick of the media saying that white, rich kids have a leg up and POC and poors don't have an equal chance at success.. No one is stopping anyone from getting a top education or good job, they have laws against discrimination in this country. The playing field is level IMHO.

LOLOLOLLOL!
Yeah everybody follows the law everything is equal everything is 50-50 yeah!

Only someone very out of touch can honestly believe that the playing field is level.

The playing field is level with respect to the law. That's all there is and that's all there should be. Life is not a perfect balance of equality. I wasn't born with a physique for sports, nor am I as intelligent as many of the people I've met.