What happens is that schools will have a harder time avoiding discrimination against white children because they have the misfortune of having law abiding parents and white neighbors.
"At least you’re pretty transparent in projecting white victimhood and racism all at the same time."
The results will be same as what happens now with affirmative action: students get into the university based on inflated scores and then a high percentage drop out/fail out because they can't keep up with the courses.
I predict the next step after this is changing courses and making them easier because they somehow reflect 'white culture' and are 'racist'.
This doesn't help the affected communities, makes our educational institutions worthless, and only serves to help politicians get votes and make liberals feel better about themselves.
Have you actually lived in an area with underprivileged families? They truly don't care about their children. Sure, some do, the idealized version everyone thinks about do. The reality is a bunch of entitled adults or single parents who send their kid to school without jackets in the winter but come into PTA meetings (if they show up at all) are wearing $250 shoes and driving a Mercedes.
Some schools already consider geographically correlated socio-economic background into evaluation criteria. It's not really up to college board to decide this, though I'm sure they have sizable empirical data.
I'm afraid it will just be one more way for unscrupulous people to game the system.
Is adversity always bad? Many times adversity creates more motivated people. That's why so many successful companies are created by smart immigrants, and many times spoiled rich kids do drugs and end up losing all the money they inherit.
Regardless, when we stop looking at merit to judge people's work, we get into a very dangerous territory.
The problem is that average poor and middle-class kids don’t make it into college at anywhere near the rates wealthy kids do and it has almost nothing to do with their capability.
There are a lot of capable people that will never have the same opportunities just by lottery of birth. It’s true they could try to be exceptional, but everyone can’t be and that’s a ridiculous way to attack poverty.
This is how I started. I became a master technician in multiple fields learning under journeyman and master techs, found a well paying job and went to school on my employers dime. Zero debt.
Technical positions requiring trade schools (or often just practical knowledge and a will to learn) pay better than many positions that require a university education.
I hope that this isn't hinting at boosting SAT scores based on such a measure, because the obvious problem here is that you can't possibly objectively measure how much adversity a child was exposed to. Some schools are poorer than others, that's for sure, but some of the kids from rich schools are queer, getting bullied, or getting chronically abused by alcoholic or mentally ill parents at home. There's a lot of suffering out there that is not visible, not spoken about, and not identified by race, place of birth or skin color.
IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools, and make sure all schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly, don't try to adjust SAT scores based on some guestimate of how oppressed you think a person might have been.
I believe that it's useful to have capitalistic motivations to motivate people to perform. You should be able to start a business and get outsized returns if you take risks and succeed. However, I also believe in equal opportunities, and giving kids a more equal start.
Sure, but it'd also be easier to just provider decent nutrition at school, to ensure it's actually happening, irregardless of whether the parents are rich or not.
Disclaimer: I'm Scottish/European; we have different cultural thoughts on these issues
This implies that all people have the same mental and physical abilities and any observable differences are due to nutrition. One famous European (albeit Austrian), has debunked this theory in 1860s. I am not sure if his discoveries are taught in Europe nowadays though.
What you’re suggesting is a pretty massive intervention. I think it’s useful to know whether or not your proposed intervention would actually do anything before seriously putting it forward. Do you know whether schooling actually has a causal effect on life outcomes? I think you might be surprised if you start reading the literature on this.
This isn't someone having an edge over someone else because they worked for it, took a risk for it, or earned it in any way. It's because they had different parents - capitalism is about rewarding work, risk, etc not having parents who can afford to send you to a better school.
Communism pretends to seek equality at all times for all, but this is only proposing a more equal start for all, and still allows some to do better than others. Are you sure authoritarianism isn't the word you were looking for?
I don't personally think that capitalism does a good job of rewarding work. But, IME, people who are in favor or capitalism are under the impression that it's a system that allows anyone to succeed and do well, all they have to do is work hard, get money, invest, start their own business, etc.
They feel communism is unfair as it rewards people for doing nothing, while capitalism allows rags-to-riches based on work and risk AIUI
Many people would characterize this misconception as the lie of the American dream. I don't know if there ever has been a time under capitalist systems where things like inheritance, etc (which would unlevel the playing field, as it were) were explicitly banned.
A large part of the reason capitalism works is not because people want to make a better life for themselves, but because they want to make a better life for their kids. In a system where a parent can not work hard to increase the likelihood of their children’s’ success in life, likely the system would collapse. (This doesn’t mean that schools shouldn’t become more socialized, I’m pointing out the flaw in the argument that capitalism is tied to individual benefit. For any parent, their individual benefit takes a back seat to that of their kids.)
You're right about the flaw in tying capitalism to individual benefit, however, don't those parents also appreciate the love a not-so-fortunate parent has for their own child? If they want such great opportunities for their child, why wouldn't they want the same for other children? Capitalists who are so selfless for their own offspring should also feel the same about others, right?
I guess it's just hard for me to imagine someone who loves their child so much but doesn't care enough about how much someone less fortunate would care about their child. Perhaps it's because I'm not a parent
Communism is about the state owning the means of production. If the state bans private schools, it is granting itself a monopoly on the education market. It's one of those rare instances where communism is actually the right term.
Capitalism is about private property and freedom. If parents want to provide generously to their children that's perfectly fine.
Equality of opportunity is equally as bad as equality of results. It denies people the ability to reach as high as they can and forcibly brings them down.
Is that really worse than what we already have, where most people are denied the ability to reach as high as they could because of who they were born to? You can appreciate that many parents who are able to want to provide generously to their kids, so imagine a parent feeling the same but not being able to be generous. Passing on money you don't have is pretty hard, but passing on the way people looked down on you for your financial status is unfortunately easy to pass on, as are your wishes that you went to (or even had the money to) go to college, among other things. You know your child deserves so much and could do so much, if only they had the resources to achieve all they could
It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.
But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice.
I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education.
It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction.
I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff.
Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems.
You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue.
Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money?
It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.
I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.
Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, the chances of achievement would be particularly low.
It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother?
Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.
Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system".
Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse.
For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line.
I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech.
You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?
Having a private school gives a comparison (and hopefully competition) with state schools.
Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc.
I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.
You have input regarding what the state provides. If you want to give your child a better education, you can improve the public system. No, not (only) by voting. Yes, you can do this as a single individual without coordinating with the rest of the country.
If the students of wealthy families are in those public schools, the quality of education there going to go way up. Wealthy parents have much more time to take an active role in their child's school, volunteering for events, organizing fundraisers (and donating to them), scrutinizing the curriculum, and holding teachers to account. Parents living in poverty tend to be too busy to pay much attention (let alone to run for the school board), or may not realize what opportunities for improvement exist.
There's no reason the state can't provide an excellent education, and in many countries it does. But if public education is de-facto only for the poor, then it s not going to be much of a priority for the state either.
> You have input regarding what the state provides.
No, the majority electorate has input regarding what the state provides. If I'm lucky, I'm part of that majority.
Government systems do not cater to minorities unless the majority electorate decides to be charitable.
Private systems sometimes provide the minority extra choices because they chase profits instead of votes. Of course, that's only if there is profit to be made off the minority.
Neither system does a good job of catering to poor minorities. But getting rid of one wont make the other better.
Not sure you really read my post? If you're a wealthy parent, you can directly impact your child's school much more than by voting in an election. You can do so by taking time to pay attention to what goes on in your kid's school, organizing fundraisers, arranging guest lectures, extracurriculars, etc.
You really have to have witnessed what these parents can do to understand their transformative impact. I've seen it for myself.
If it were feasible, would you want the US government to prevent wealthy Americans from emigrating?
If not, what is different about a ban on emigrating such that your argument applies to a ban on private schools, but does not apply to ban on emigrating?
Would not the quality of the US government stay higher if those American citizens with the largest capacity to influence it were forced to remain American citizens rather than become, e.g., German citizens when things in the US become worse than they are in Germany?
Sorry, I really don't follow the analogy. If there were such a thing as a public countries and private countries, within the territory of the US, such that the wealthy could opt to be governed by a private government while the poor had to be subjected to the public government, then perhaps an analogy could be made along these lines.
By the way, moving countries is surprisingly rare and quite difficult to do, even when times are tough in your home country.
> the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools
Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools.
> make sure all [public] schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly
That only addresses one aspect of the problem. None of the other issues measured, or others like the subjective ones you listed would benefit from that.
>Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools.
When what you pay into public schools becomes your tax contribution to private schools they will on average have more per student if more students from higher tax brackets join.
1. Those in private school do not have to be funded by the state, and so, given a finite budget, the average funding per child in public school goes up.
2. (Your point, if I understood correctly, and which I hadn't considered...) The tax take from private school fees indirectly helps fund the public schools. Without that tax income, the education budget (or some other public spending) would necessarily go down.
> IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools, and make sure all schools have the same amount of funding per student.
Funny you forgot students still get different education resources from home.
When schools are equal, other factors become more significant. I think the next steps are:
- ban private tutoring
- ban zoning, not sure how this is going to work
- ban educational books from the market, so all educational books are equally distributed through public libraries
- wait, parents can still teach their kids. This is not fair. We also need to ban parents from teaching their kids. For an equal society, programmers should not be allowed to teach their kids programming.
- remove children from their families and put them in state-run facilities[0]
People who promote "equality by handicap" will be happy to go down the path you outline, if/when they don't see the results they expect from the previous step. I have yet to see a line they aren't willing to cross for "no, that infringes on individual freedom too much."
Banning private schools is an extreme position, but I see some sense in it. Here's how I think about it.
It tends to be the wealthier, better connected, more influential people who send their kids to private schools. So, we have a situation where the influential people don't have a lot to lose if public schools happen to be under-funded (their kids get private education). So it is more politically tolerable than it should be to under-fund public schools.
Until the rich/influential people find a school district in an area with extremely high housing costs, and give it a ton of money. Which ends up making a "public" school with a lot of the qualities of private schools that you seem to dislike.
Being poor is simply a lack of resources and opportunity. A rich kid in a poor school will still have access to the same opportunities as a rich kid in a private school...
Parental wealth only matters if the parents are willing to spend on the kid. A "rich" kid in a poor school probably doesn't have parents who care to help the kid, making the parents money moot.
I work in this space, and this study is getting a lot of attention. At the end of the day, colleges don't care. They have their pell eligibility quotas, their ethnicity ratio considerations, net tuition revenue requirements, etc etc.
Their objective is to maximize their reputation - if they find students with lower SAT scores from poorer neighborhoods become more successful in their careers and donate more money/become notable figures/contribute more to academic research, that's who they will admit (given the profitability with financial aid and federal incentives).
Colleges aren't going to change anything based on this study, however it does enrage the wealthy white families and rally the poor black ones with the topic of racial/financial adversity, so it's bound to get a lot of attention.
I think you’re right, universities are reputation maximizers - but so are parents and students, and I’m not so sure they think of the university as another rational actor in the same vein as themselves. The more I think about it the more I’m starting to believe that the only winning move is not to play.
I really hate coded language like this. Call it what it is: race-based social engineering. Yeah, it doesn't sound as "nice", right? Something to ponder deeply.
> Call it what it is: race-based social engineering.
Race-based social engineering, aka racism, has been a thing for as long as society has existed. Not exactly a new concept. This is a small attempt to right thousands of years of injustice.
Interesting plots. What would actually happen though is that anxious elites would attempt to game the adversity system, doing things like maintaining an address in a “distressed” neighborhood for how ever long it takes to matter. The moral-ethical considerations aside (we’re actually going to punish or reward the children for the decisions the parents make?), this is just going to be abused. I’m skeptical it would even work as intended. Putting students into schools that they’re not academically prepared to be at because they had a rough time growing up sounds like setting them up for continued failure.
I also didn’t know UC was considering dropping the SAT all together. You know who will be the loudest cheerleaders for that? The same anxious elites that would move to a crappy neighborhood to boost their kid’s SAT score. Dropping the closest proxy we have for future academic performance (and a darn good one at that) would make everyone run for the side-door entrances to these institutions - and the back door will get a lot more lucrative. What a shame.
" Dropping the closest proxy we have for future academic performance (and a darn good one at that)"
I'm actually super not educated in this- do you have proof that good SAT score is a strong predictor of good academic performance, and vice versa? (The vice versa is the most important part to me.)
There's a loose correlation between SAT and college grades. There's also a correlation between parents income and college grades. And several other things. The common thread - they're almost all related to socio-economic status - the more educated and wealthy the parents, the more successful the student, on average.
Off topic, I'm wondering, do people on here tend to have subscriptions to sites like wsj.com that are behind a paywall or is there a known way to get past it without one that I just don't know about?
91 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 323 ms ] threadAt least you’re pretty transparent in projecting white victimhood and racism all at the same time.
The results will be same as what happens now with affirmative action: students get into the university based on inflated scores and then a high percentage drop out/fail out because they can't keep up with the courses.
I predict the next step after this is changing courses and making them easier because they somehow reflect 'white culture' and are 'racist'.
This doesn't help the affected communities, makes our educational institutions worthless, and only serves to help politicians get votes and make liberals feel better about themselves.
I'm afraid it will just be one more way for unscrupulous people to game the system.
That graphic lets you compare and contrast between various gender/race and their income mobility.
Regardless, when we stop looking at merit to judge people's work, we get into a very dangerous territory.
Identity politics is cancer.
There are a lot of capable people that will never have the same opportunities just by lottery of birth. It’s true they could try to be exceptional, but everyone can’t be and that’s a ridiculous way to attack poverty.
Technical positions requiring trade schools (or often just practical knowledge and a will to learn) pay better than many positions that require a university education.
Maybe the poor kid goes to a trade school moving up from poor to upper middle class.
The kid of said person would have a better start...repeat the cycle and after just 2-3 generations you have a Harvard/Stanford graduate
This is how many Jews and Asians moved up from being broke poor
Isn't mobility actually decreasing?
I also went to college in New Orleans, and my classmates got $700/mo. from the government if they stayed in school (no idea how, though).
IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools, and make sure all schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly, don't try to adjust SAT scores based on some guestimate of how oppressed you think a person might have been.
Disclaimer: I'm Scottish/European; we have different cultural thoughts on these issues
This doesn't mean that people should have an equal finish though, as if you work harder and smarter, not many would you shouldn't reap the rewards.
Communism pretends to seek equality at all times for all, but this is only proposing a more equal start for all, and still allows some to do better than others. Are you sure authoritarianism isn't the word you were looking for?
Since when is capitalism _about_ rewarding work and risk?
They feel communism is unfair as it rewards people for doing nothing, while capitalism allows rags-to-riches based on work and risk AIUI
I guess it's just hard for me to imagine someone who loves their child so much but doesn't care enough about how much someone less fortunate would care about their child. Perhaps it's because I'm not a parent
Equality of opportunity is equally as bad as equality of results. It denies people the ability to reach as high as they can and forcibly brings them down.
Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction.
I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems.
You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue.
Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money?
Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother?
Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.
Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse.
For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech.
You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?
Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc.
I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.
If the students of wealthy families are in those public schools, the quality of education there going to go way up. Wealthy parents have much more time to take an active role in their child's school, volunteering for events, organizing fundraisers (and donating to them), scrutinizing the curriculum, and holding teachers to account. Parents living in poverty tend to be too busy to pay much attention (let alone to run for the school board), or may not realize what opportunities for improvement exist.
There's no reason the state can't provide an excellent education, and in many countries it does. But if public education is de-facto only for the poor, then it s not going to be much of a priority for the state either.
No, the majority electorate has input regarding what the state provides. If I'm lucky, I'm part of that majority.
Government systems do not cater to minorities unless the majority electorate decides to be charitable.
Private systems sometimes provide the minority extra choices because they chase profits instead of votes. Of course, that's only if there is profit to be made off the minority.
Neither system does a good job of catering to poor minorities. But getting rid of one wont make the other better.
You really have to have witnessed what these parents can do to understand their transformative impact. I've seen it for myself.
If not, what is different about a ban on emigrating such that your argument applies to a ban on private schools, but does not apply to ban on emigrating?
Would not the quality of the US government stay higher if those American citizens with the largest capacity to influence it were forced to remain American citizens rather than become, e.g., German citizens when things in the US become worse than they are in Germany?
By the way, moving countries is surprisingly rare and quite difficult to do, even when times are tough in your home country.
Private schools increase the funding available per-student in public schools.
> make sure all [public] schools have the same amount of funding per student. In other words, target the poverty problem directly
That only addresses one aspect of the problem. None of the other issues measured, or others like the subjective ones you listed would benefit from that.
When what you pay into public schools becomes your tax contribution to private schools they will on average have more per student if more students from higher tax brackets join.
1. Those in private school do not have to be funded by the state, and so, given a finite budget, the average funding per child in public school goes up.
2. (Your point, if I understood correctly, and which I hadn't considered...) The tax take from private school fees indirectly helps fund the public schools. Without that tax income, the education budget (or some other public spending) would necessarily go down.
Funny you forgot students still get different education resources from home.
When schools are equal, other factors become more significant. I think the next steps are:
- ban private tutoring
- ban zoning, not sure how this is going to work
- ban educational books from the market, so all educational books are equally distributed through public libraries
- wait, parents can still teach their kids. This is not fair. We also need to ban parents from teaching their kids. For an equal society, programmers should not be allowed to teach their kids programming.
- etc.
- remove children from their families and put them in state-run facilities[0]
People who promote "equality by handicap" will be happy to go down the path you outline, if/when they don't see the results they expect from the previous step. I have yet to see a line they aren't willing to cross for "no, that infringes on individual freedom too much."
0. https://destroycapitalismnow.wordpress.com/2017/03/26/abolis... "The guarantee of protection of children will be taken away from the backwards bourgeois family and assigned to new, progressive social institutions."
It tends to be the wealthier, better connected, more influential people who send their kids to private schools. So, we have a situation where the influential people don't have a lot to lose if public schools happen to be under-funded (their kids get private education). So it is more politically tolerable than it should be to under-fund public schools.
Of course, the above already happens.
Their objective is to maximize their reputation - if they find students with lower SAT scores from poorer neighborhoods become more successful in their careers and donate more money/become notable figures/contribute more to academic research, that's who they will admit (given the profitability with financial aid and federal incentives).
Colleges aren't going to change anything based on this study, however it does enrage the wealthy white families and rally the poor black ones with the topic of racial/financial adversity, so it's bound to get a lot of attention.
I really hate coded language like this. Call it what it is: race-based social engineering. Yeah, it doesn't sound as "nice", right? Something to ponder deeply.
Race-based social engineering, aka racism, has been a thing for as long as society has existed. Not exactly a new concept. This is a small attempt to right thousands of years of injustice.
I also didn’t know UC was considering dropping the SAT all together. You know who will be the loudest cheerleaders for that? The same anxious elites that would move to a crappy neighborhood to boost their kid’s SAT score. Dropping the closest proxy we have for future academic performance (and a darn good one at that) would make everyone run for the side-door entrances to these institutions - and the back door will get a lot more lucrative. What a shame.
I'm actually super not educated in this- do you have proof that good SAT score is a strong predictor of good academic performance, and vice versa? (The vice versa is the most important part to me.)