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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I have donated to my alma mater when my child was a senior in high school. Yes, I have gotten my children summer jobs through my connections. How differentiated are 20 year olds in skill sets anyway?

No problem with multifamily housing in the neighborhood, other than traffic congestion.

I'd have a problem with multifamily housing in my neighborhood if it affected my quality of life and the value of my house. I mean, if I wanted to live near multifamily residences, I would have bought there to begin with.

So do you think this book is a bit demonizing?

Is it possible that it SHOULD be demonizing. The growing wealth gap in the United States isn't just bad for poor kids. It's bad for the country. We literally cannot continue on this path and expect to have a functioning economy or democracy. So, yeah, perhaps it is demonizing, but perhaps it is time that UMC folks start working toward the common good rather than just the good of their own progeny.

I worked my ass off to make it into the UMC, and I'd like to see the wealthy who can afford to come down a few rungs on the ladder without taking a major hit to their lifestyle go first. It's not that hard a tumble back down the ladder from UMC, and a lot of us aren't here because of generational wealth or some other sort of safety net that prevents socioeconomic class slippage. We are fortunate to be able to make a lot of positive contributions through donations and volunteering, but expecting me to disadvantage my kid deliberately? Nope. I came from the working middle class, and I'm not going back.

I hate people like you. You happily climb ladder rungs while hoping others above you fall down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I have donated to my alma mater when my child was a senior in high school. Yes, I have gotten my children summer jobs through my connections. How differentiated are 20 year olds in skill sets anyway?

No problem with multifamily housing in the neighborhood, other than traffic congestion.

I'd have a problem with multifamily housing in my neighborhood if it affected my quality of life and the value of my house. I mean, if I wanted to live near multifamily residences, I would have bought there to begin with.

So do you think this book is a bit demonizing?

Is it possible that it SHOULD be demonizing. The growing wealth gap in the United States isn't just bad for poor kids. It's bad for the country. We literally cannot continue on this path and expect to have a functioning economy or democracy. So, yeah, perhaps it is demonizing, but perhaps it is time that UMC folks start working toward the common good rather than just the good of their own progeny.

I worked my ass off to make it into the UMC, and I'd like to see the wealthy who can afford to come down a few rungs on the ladder without taking a major hit to their lifestyle go first. It's not that hard a tumble back down the ladder from UMC, and a lot of us aren't here because of generational wealth or some other sort of safety net that prevents socioeconomic class slippage. We are fortunate to be able to make a lot of positive contributions through donations and volunteering, but expecting me to disadvantage my kid deliberately? Nope. I came from the working middle class, and I'm not going back.

Anonymous wrote:So what does that mean of our middle class parents who did these things-- stayed home with us, sent us to preschool, helped us get into college? Were they wrong in doing so? Why wouldn't we want our kids to have the same experiences and opportunities that we did?

My parents were not rich, definitely not over $120,000 when we were growing up, but they provided all these things for us. Now DH and I do make over that amount, and want our kid to have the same that we did.

Again, the book doesn't say "you shouldn't want your kids to go to college and have opportunities."


http://www.elle.com/culture/books/a46121/dream-hoarders-feature/

Anonymous wrote:My biggest issue with this is that it's not: if I help my child, I'm taking an opportunity away from a poor child - the whole premise is off. If I don't give a donation to my alma mater then my marginally qualified (because I don't think my school would actually take an unqualified child without a much larger donation than I could give) wont get in and a poor student will, it is that another slightly more qualified than my kid but still likely upper middle class child would get in.

And the unpaid internships don't really work for kids who need summers to earn money to pay for school.

So at the end of the day it isn't me as an individual who is hoarding dreams, it is a system. We don't live in a socialist society where everyone is intended to be equal all the time and we can debate the merits of that. But saying that helping your kid is harming a poor kid is way too simplistic and puts an onus on individuals where there really can't be one.

Yep, there was a review of the book in ELLE magazine that captured this idea pretty well. And the author said not to use your own child as a social policy experiment (or something like that)...just that the first step is to be aware of the system and your place in it, and what you can do about it. Which requires more honest reflection than taking the idea to its least defensible conclusion (so I shouldn't support my own kid?!) and "debating" that.

So what does that mean of our middle class parents who did these things-- stayed home with us, sent us to preschool, helped us get into college? Were they wrong in doing so? Why wouldn't we want our kids to have the same experiences and opportunities that we did?

My parents were not rich, definitely not over $120,000 when we were growing up, but they provided all these things for us. Now DH and I do make over that amount, and want our kid to have the same that we did.

My biggest issue with this is that it's not: if I help my child, I'm taking an opportunity away from a poor child - the whole premise is off. If I don't give a donation to my alma mater then my marginally qualified (because I don't think my school would actually take an unqualified child without a much larger donation than I could give) wont get in and a poor student will, it is that another slightly more qualified than my kid but still likely upper middle class child would get in.

And the unpaid internships don't really work for kids who need summers to earn money to pay for school.

So at the end of the day it isn't me as an individual who is hoarding dreams, it is a system. We don't live in a socialist society where everyone is intended to be equal all the time and we can debate the merits of that. But saying that helping your kid is harming a poor kid is way too simplistic and puts an onus on individuals where there really can't be one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I have donated to my alma mater when my child was a senior in high school. Yes, I have gotten my children summer jobs through my connections. How differentiated are 20 year olds in skill sets anyway?

No problem with multifamily housing in the neighborhood, other than traffic congestion.

Tough to say because you dream hoarded.

I don't give a shit. If I don't help my kid, the internship will go not to a qualified but poor child, but to the child of another UMC family who used its connections. Truth.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I have donated to my alma mater when my child was a senior in high school. Yes, I have gotten my children summer jobs through my connections. How differentiated are 20 year olds in skill sets anyway?

No problem with multifamily housing in the neighborhood, other than traffic congestion.

I'd have a problem with multifamily housing in my neighborhood if it affected my quality of life and the value of my house. I mean, if I wanted to live near multifamily residences, I would have bought there to begin with.

So do you think this book is a bit demonizing?

Is it possible that it SHOULD be demonizing. The growing wealth gap in the United States isn't just bad for poor kids. It's bad for the country. We literally cannot continue on this path and expect to have a functioning economy or democracy. So, yeah, perhaps it is demonizing, but perhaps it is time that UMC folks start working toward the common good rather than just the good of their own progeny.

Gosh, I didn't realize the common good and the good of my own progeny had to be mutually exclusive.

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.

It kind of does in the author's logic, because if your contacts help your less qualified child get an internship, then this internship cannot go to a smarter but less connected kid. Same with college admissions. There is a finite number of those so it's a zero sum game.

What about those of us "dream hoarders" who actually create new jobs and internships? And also, how naïve is it not to use everything legal at your disposal to help your kids? I wish my parents had done so.

Anonymous wrote:This is so ridiculous. Of course you're going to help your child get an internship and get into college.

And who wants their nice SFH to be surrounded by looming apartment buildings?

The whole idea is ridiculous.

Your comments are repulsive.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I have donated to my alma mater when my child was a senior in high school. Yes, I have gotten my children summer jobs through my connections. How differentiated are 20 year olds in skill sets anyway?

No problem with multifamily housing in the neighborhood, other than traffic congestion.

Tough to say because you dream hoarded.

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

This is so ridiculous. Of course you're going to help your child get an internship and get into college.

And who wants their nice SFH to be surrounded by looming apartment buildings?

The whole idea is ridiculous.