Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a first generation immigrant from a poor Eastern European country. I'm also white and beautiful. I had minimal struggles despite being a poor immigrant only because I'm white and beautiful. I'm saying minimal, not none, because the vast majority of my managers have been mediocre white men with low intellect, degrees from podunk universities, with no communication or writing skills. Forget about leadership skills.
Georgetown came out with a great study showing that smarter kids from disadvantaged backgrounds are worse off than white kids with lower intellect.
The trend continues, at least at my work, where I advocated for hiring some amazing candidates with proven leadership skills, MIT degrees (I'm in tech). So far, for the last 3 years, we've been hiring only mediocre white men as they show the greatest potential for teamwork.

UGH! The "teamwork" angle. For most white men, Teamwork just means piggybacking off of other people's ideas while they shirk the blame/responsibility and claim all the credit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

ha yeah I know. I'm just waiting for all the SJW to move to the crappy areas. That would fix the problem too but surprise no one does it. Seems like SJW like to hold on to "privilege" aka do what's best for their children just like everyone else. So to all the SJW f off lolz

Such an easy term to throw around. Has it never occurred to you that there are plenty of progressives in low-income areas as well?

The vast, vast majority do not stay, particularly after they have kids.

Again, you're assuming that only people with significant money can be progressives (if they don't have money, they don't have a choice about staying in a low-income area). That's simply not true.

I'm LMC, as are my neighbors, and everyone I've met here is probably what you'd dismiss as an "SJW."

I think you are probably responding to my comments. I'll cut you so some slack but you realize you are a unicorn right. DCUM barely has any LMC people on it. It does have tons of progressives/SJW/limousine liberals who have the do as I say not as I do down to a T.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

ha yeah I know. I'm just waiting for all the SJW to move to the crappy areas. That would fix the problem too but surprise no one does it. Seems like SJW like to hold on to "privilege" aka do what's best for their children just like everyone else. So to all the SJW f off lolz

Such an easy term to throw around. Has it never occurred to you that there are plenty of progressives in low-income areas as well?

The vast, vast majority do not stay, particularly after they have kids.

Again, you're assuming that only people with significant money can be progressives (if they don't have money, they don't have a choice about staying in a low-income area). That's simply not true.

I'm LMC, as are my neighbors, and everyone I've met here is probably what you'd dismiss as an "SJW."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fck off. I worked for my "privilege". My parents were the first in my family to go to college. I resent this being counted against my kids for purely political reasons.

You really don’t get it apparently.

I’m a lawyer in biglaw. No one in the building works harder than the janitorial staff. And many of them have second and third jobs. Lots of people work hard. But their hard work doesn’t help their kids like mine does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am shocked by how many people are upset of the SAT adversity score. They do not want to admit the privileges that their children having growing up in a nice school district, safe school, etc. These are all great things! Everyone wants these things for their kids but sadly, many kids do not have access to these resources. Why are people so afraid to own that privilege and be proud of it while also working toward the same future for other kids? What are you afraid of? Honestly if you kid doesn't get into HPY and goes to say, UVA- what do you think will happen? Do you really think their future is lost? Are you afraid they will end up on the streets?

Seriously please help me understand...

Because they don't want their kids to just have a good life, they want their kids to have it all. They want everything for their kids and don't care if that means other kids get little of nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

How do people avoid poverty if the minimum wage (which is all you can expect to earn, at least at first, if you have only an HS diploma) will not rent you a two-bedroom in 99 percent of the nation's counties? How do you pay for a trade school if all you're earning is minimum wage?

Read the PPs more closely.

You don't need a two-bedroom apartment all to yourself if you are single, and remember, you don't have kids yet!. You won't have kids for -years-.

So as a single 19 or 20 year old with a high school degree, earning minimum wage, you rent a room in a group house if you're in an expensive city. Maybe you even share that room that has 2 twin-size beds with another person?

If you're in, say, Dubuque IA, and group homes aren't a thing, you rent a basement from a SFH homeowner on the outskirts of town. Maybe you rent that basement with a roommate.

Are you in my hometown in Kansas, working in an agribusiness processing plant? Then you and 5 of your friends at the plant rent the whole damn house, and you follow the rules and don't trash the house and the owner lets you continue to rent for years as you attend night school at the county community college.

All of this is doable. It's hard as hell to live in deprivation without that second bedroom and balcony, but a healthy, childless, single 19 year old working 40+ hours a week can do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

ha yeah I know. I'm just waiting for all the SJW to move to the crappy areas. That would fix the problem too but surprise no one does it. Seems like SJW like to hold on to "privilege" aka do what's best for their children just like everyone else. So to all the SJW f off lolz

Such an easy term to throw around. Has it never occurred to you that there are plenty of progressives in low-income areas as well?

The vast, vast majority do not stay, particularly after they have kids.

How do people avoid poverty if the minimum wage (which is all you can expect to earn, at least at first, if you have only an HS diploma) will not rent you a two-bedroom in 99 percent of the nation's counties? How do you pay for a trade school if all you're earning is minimum wage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm someone who fully believes that some people are born with more privilege or advantages (due to race, sex, SES, etc) than others. Consequently, I also believe there should be policies intended to equalize the playing field. But SAT adversity points scheme is stupid and self-defeating. What's the purpose of the exam if the score is not an accurate reflection of how well the student performed on the exam? The answer should be making free SAT prep available to disadvantaged students not artificially inflating SAT scores.

If you have a class with 40 kids that are advanced and 10 kids that are average the 10 kids that are average are going to struggle and frankly they have no business at an elite institution

the actual solution is to improve schools in lower performing areas to address the knowledge gap much earlier in life and really it starts from birth-5 with more and better headstart type programs

Get with the times, PP. That is so old school. Nowadays, the going reasoning is that there is *obviously* something wrong with the curriculum or the test if those 10 kids are underperforming. It must be racial bias or privilege-bias (especially if 8 out of 10 of those kids are URM) that caused the kids not to learn as quickly. So now you need to change the curriculum or create ratios so that you push at least 6 of those 10 kids into the advanced program. (See AAP in FCPS)

ha yeah I know. I'm just waiting for all the SJW to move to the crappy areas. That would fix the problem too but surprise no one does it. Seems like SJW like to hold on to "privilege" aka do what's best for their children just like everyone else. So to all the SJW f off lolz

Such an easy term to throw around. Has it never occurred to you that there are plenty of progressives in low-income areas as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is also privilege in being unprivileged. We should acknowledge that as well.

Neither of my parents went to college. One parent only has an 8th grade education. I was embarrassed by this fact until my high school guidance counselor showed me how it would be a good thing and work to my advantage. She told me that colleges loved someone like me who'd persevered through all the challenges and still managed to be a 4.0 student. I didn't really trust her 100% until I took the PSATs. I scored a 1540 and colleges started bombarding me with calls and invites to tour their campuses. I got a 1570 on my SATs and the recruiting intensified. With the help of my guidance counselor, I was able to visit most schools for free by utilizing their financial aid departments. There's no way my parents could afford trips like that for me to take tours.

The fact that I had under-educated, blue collar parents worked to my advantage and helped me get into an Ivy. Yes, I had excellent grades and test scores, but without the guidance and knowledge of my counselor, I would have ignored all of those offers for tours and never have applied to any Ivy league schools. Before that I was 100% planning on attending George Mason so I could live at home and save money that way. That's still privilege, IMO.

Same here. I would assume that you, like me, experienced a fairly sh$tty childhood with food scarcity, no heat at times, etc., so I don't feel my scholarship was undeserved. However, it was a little weird to graduate with no debt while my wealthy classmates were saddled with many thousands to pay.

But that's how they achieve their goals of diversity, and I was glad to participate. I'm now a woman in a hugely male-dominated field, and yes, I've gotten every job I've applied for. I'm 100% qualified, and I assume at least one male applicant was, too. But diversity's working in my favor because of what I guess you would call female privilege.

I mean, cool story for you. But you do know that your children will not benefit from such privilege, right?

Also, if you are caucasian, that "female diversity" will only carry you so far. You will win the job over a white male, but if you're up against a female, lesbian woman of color, you will lose the job every time.