Anonymous wrote:I do not understand why ppl are making it a race thing. Do you realize this is race neutral! Many AAs including myself will be hurt in this and it will actually lead to lower numbers of AAs in schools because *SHOCKING* most AAs at ivy's are pretty well off. It is incredibly difficult for poor students to make it to college hence why even the minorities are pretty well off. In the end, if anything this will lead to more poor white kids getting an edge. STOP MAKING THIS ABOUT BLACK PPL It IS ABOUT POVERTY. I know you don't like to see black ppl around you so this policy will actually help- you should support it.
Anonymous wrote:The only constant on DCUM is an obsession with status and how it is defined. Those on the left generally appear even more obsessed with this than those on the right. The discussion around privilege is a prime example.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Discussions like this make me unapologetic about any “privilege” you think I have. Congrats.
I am an immigrant and I have zero patients for crap like this.
You probably have no patience for lots of things... it’s called having a low EQ.
if you are implying that i am low on conscientiousness (only one facet of EQ) then, as it happens, this is not the case. i have a phd and i am doing well, thanks. but no way my kids will be paying for the fact that there were slaves like 200 years ago in the US. we don't care.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I had to look up what is the SAT adversity score.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/
I don't doubt privilege, but I think assigning a score rubs me the wrong way since I think there are all kinds of different person circumstances that can't be quantified. College admissions counselors know the schools in their area. I think they can eyeball it enough on their own without a score.
Yep. Parental death, sexual assaults, alcoholic parents, etc. Where do you draw the line?
My white husband grew up dirt poor. His father was an alcoholic. His mother worked two jobs and wasn’t around because of it. His HS had only a small number that went on to 4-year colleges. He scored a near perfect SAT score, much higher than me as white UMC student. The students that benefited from racial admissions boost in my HS had wealthy doctor parents. I couldn’t understand how they needed admissions help and with a full grade point lower they got in to every college they applied. These things don’t always serve the group they are trying to help. It’s similar to the wealthy Latinos at my children’s school getting into every Ivy. It helps diversity numbers, but zero to do with SES. This new adversity score tries to address that, but things like this are always a disaster and a slippery slope. Then, the students often aren’t prepared for the rigor of the environment they are thrust into. And what about the Asians that are handicapped getting into Universities solely by being Asian?
Just do away with the test.
People looking at my husband now in his late 40s would assume he was a white, blue eyed man of privilege. He pulled himself up by the bootstraps.
Read “Hillbilly Elegy”. Eye opening. My husband thinks much like the author does about this type of thing. Not a fan.
Anonymous wrote:I had to look up what is the SAT adversity score.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adversity-score-sat-exam-college-board-calculate-students-admissions-college-wall-street-journal/
I don't doubt privilege, but I think assigning a score rubs me the wrong way since I think there are all kinds of different person circumstances that can't be quantified. College admissions counselors know the schools in their area. I think they can eyeball it enough on their own without a score.
Anonymous wrote:The "nobody works harder than the janitorial staff" comment is interesting.
Here's what people fail to realize: the janitors will move up in American society precisely because of their hard work. Their kids will be fully bilingual, speak and write English perfectly, attend our suburban public schools, and thrive.
I know a woman who received asylum (not easy), started her own house cleaning business in moco, etc. Fast forward: she's a home owner and her 3 kids all have advanced degrees. I could rattle off tons of stories like this (I work in homelessness/poverty advocacy).
But here's what nobody says out loud: the immigrants will be fine. Statistics show the American Dream is still alive for them. They move up the ladder quickly, and their kids thrive. By contrast, poor Americans (primarily black and white) are stuck. It can't be the schools because the immigrants' kids are in the same schools. MoCo is a great microcosm for this social experiment: immigrants thrive, while inter generational poverty among AAs persists. Don't you think we should ask ourselves why? (Happy to provide hints: teen pregnancy, dropping out, raised by stressed out single mom/aunt/grandma, burdened by bad credit and criminal records so jobs and housing options are limited, etc. Dozens of studies indicate that delaying child birth and 2 income families lift people out of poverty. We can't legislate that. Bummer. Because it's the silver bullet to family economic stability and the ticket to a solid adulthood. Again: the immigrants and the low-performing American kids are in the exact same neighborhoods and schools; the difference is the immigrant families eventually move on.)
Lastly: the guy who drives me to the airport is an immigrant. He now owns a fleet of cabs. He lives in a $1.5 mil home in the burbs, and 2 of his handful of kids are on scholarships in DC grad schools. He started out in a very crappy neighborhood. He and his wife hustled before having kids.
Anonymous wrote:Is throwing kids into a college way over their heads a good idea? Heck, is out of state college a good idea for *anyone* anymore? Student loan debt should be avoided at all costs---especially for kids whose families lack assets to bail them out.
Perhaps an apt comparison is the failed home ownership push? While homeownership can produce "wealth", it isn't for everyone. For nearly two decades, the antipoverty movement focused on pushing everyone towards it---ready or not. It didn't go well. Home ownership is a big responsibility, and it's quite costly. Maintaining a home over the course of a mortgage and keeping up with taxes can be impossible for some. It turns out subsidizing rentals is the better investment.
Lastly, the unintended political consequences of such a policy will be big. This is why we have trump. People don't like whatever is perceived as a handout---even otherwise good people. Rather: invest in quality public education, communities, etc. AND make clear that personal responsibility is a "thing" that benefits all of us. The conservatives are outpacing liberals simply behave their policies are built on personal responsibility rhetoric. It matters, for a variety of reasons.
I would love to see us stop taking the easy way out with sweeping policies that don't produce results (like this sat policy). Instead, let's take the more complex approach of actually improving schools, communities and economic and family stability.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Discussions like this make me unapologetic about any “privilege” you think I have. Congrats.
I am an immigrant and I have zero patients for crap like this.
You probably have no patience for lots of things... it’s called having a low EQ.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Discussions like this make me unapologetic about any “privilege” you think I have. Congrats.
I am an immigrant and I have zero patients for crap like this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Discussions like this make me unapologetic about any “privilege” you think I have. Congrats.
I am an immigrant and I have zero patients for crap like this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Discussions like this make me unapologetic about any “privilege” you think I have. Congrats.
I am an immigrant and I have zero patients for crap like this.