I beleive that there is an innate instinct leading the way for this development of aristocratic lineage. Most who grow up with parents in high social standing would likely aim to rise to the same status and positions as his family before them, for they know how much they benefited and would like to provide the same lifestyle for their offspring. I do know though that we all have an opportunity to a certain degree to place ourselves among the elite and join ranks with those who inherit it. Though it may be harder, but it is always possible, especially if someone has a goal in mind. - Maulford Smith
The idea about putting money where the students go as far as schools is pretty interesting, but if the author's argument is that the wealthy maintain their status by spreading education, this can be done without a large reform of the system as well. Knowledge can be spread to lower income families through early intervention education programs. Students can be exposed to cheaper methods of knowledge distribution such as books and learning CDs, or can you free educational online resources that expose children to early phonics, reading, and math principles. This is a small change that could be introduced to assist the problem as it exists now, since it is unlikely that the education system will be completely overhauled anytime soon.
As much as I would love college to be free and for America to be a more educated nation, I also want the economy and the unemployment rate to be as ideal as possible. Competition is what motivates people to work hard in school and in life in general. If everyone gets an undergraduate degree, then only those who go to grad school and so forth will truly be competitive in the work force. People will be starting be starting their careers later in life, meaning they will make less in their lifetime and have more debt than we leave with now. Because no matter how cheap college is, housing and books and all of the little things that pile up will always be there.
Although I agree, I disagree that would at least be the first step. With education comes a better nation, but if money is driving people away then that is a set back for our nation. It is usually the same type of people that cannot go to college because of money, but that should not be the factor. Yes, competition is needed but how much is too much, until you start to drive people away.
I found this article very interesting having come from a father with a masters degree in electrical engineering and a mother with only a high school diploma. The two represent a very unique relationship when compared to the effect of educated parents on children. My mom predominately raised me at home as a young child since she did daycare while my father was at work. Even though she wasn't a college educated woman, she was able to raise me in a way that allowed me to be bright enough to score well in school and take a tough major at a good college. More so, they were able to take care of my college which is a huge advantage. I do agree that the nursery program of the United States needs to be improved as i find that my close relationship with my mother was important to my success now.
This article does bring up many interesting and true points. One of the first things it mentions is this country's hostility towards inherited power, yet we have so many people who are "successful," just because of who their parents were. Many former presidents are perfect examples of this; the majority of politicians come from wealthy, powerful families that paved the way for them to also be rich, powerful politicians. It's very hard to against the fact that a bachelor's degree does make someone more than twice as likely to be successful as somebody who did not go to college, but I myself come from a family in which most barely have a high school diploma, but that did not affect me or my decision to go to college. Although my mother did not have the opportunity to go to college, she always instilled the value of education in me from a young age, and I think that's a very important thing for parents to teach their kids at a young age. It's definitely true that it is harder for working class families to send their kids to school because they are worried about rising costs and debt, while wealthy families can easily pay for their children's education and have the ability to raise them in better neighborhoods, send them to better schools, and just better their chances at being successful in life overall. I think that this trend is what makes inequality a growing issue in this country, because the rich keep getting richer and the poor or working class have a harder time meeting ends meet. -Karen Reyes
I think the author contradicts his article with the concluding statement "Finally, America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy." The author is arguing here that in order to give all people a chance at an amazing education, universities must only look at academics. But, earlier in the article the author states, "The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared. " This statement implies children of wealthy families get more advantages in terms of education (e.g. a Mandarin tutor). Wouldn't this mean that an education built solely on meritocracy would be biased to begin with?
As much as I was supportive of this article in the beginning, the final two paragraphs changed my mind. The statement where "America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy", is contradicted with the previous mentions that American school systems are "one of only three advanced countries where the government spends more on schools in rich areas than in poor ones". In this essence, we have to account that these poor areas do not have as much access to resources and opportunities that are necessary to be competitive for college entrance; hence the fallacy of meritocracy. Curriculums are also not the same, so college preparation is much higher in areas with more resources than those with outdated books and high schoolers who have to work to help their families rather than have as much time to study for SATs. -Samantha McKnew
Wealth circulates the lives of some Americans. It fuels the accumulation of superior education, status, and other material factors held dear by the few privileged enough to possess it. Though some see that their education and hard work has helped them achieve greatness, members of the top 1 percent refuse to acknowledge that without the money and wealth of their families, their success may not be the same. Ignoring this factor and projecting that all people can “pick themselves up by the bootstrap” makes for one ignorant mind. While there are lazy people in the world, not all lazy people are poor and not all hard working people are rich.
Wealth circulates the lives of some Americans. It fuels the accumulation of superior education, status, and other material factors held dear by the few privileged enough to possess it. Though some see that their education and hard work has helped them achieve greatness, members of the top 1 percent refuse to acknowledge that without the money and wealth of their families, their success may not be the same. Ignoring this factor and projecting that all people can “pick themselves up by the bootstrap” makes for one ignorant mind. While there are lazy people in the world, not all lazy people are poor and not all hard working people are rich.
I thought that the most interesting point made in the article was about America's hostility towards inherited power. I never truly thought about the reason behind this being the fact that the U.S. was founded to rebel against monarchies, and that this mindset could still hold true today, but it definitely makes sense. I also think it's important for parents to place a lot of value on their childrens' early childhood education. I worked at a daycare and after school program for all of high school and witnessed how quickly children learned in a healthy environment, and children without the opportunity to do so are at a huge disadvantage. In the same sense, those who are able to attend college are at a huge disadvantage in life because of the knowledge they receive that others do not. Knowledge is power, and people who are able to gain it in great universities should obtain as much of it as possible because it is inevitable that not everyone will have the opportunity to do so.
This article was very interesting. I never really thought about the connection Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have to former presidents and what it might mean. The comparison to old British Aristocracy was provocative, and well put especially in light of the fact that aristocracy was what the founding fathers fought so hard against. I also think the author made good points about the lack of luck the middle class has as far as college, and the issues with the American school system. Although the author named teacher's unions as one of the forces working against progression towards education reform, I also think that pay has a lot to do with it as well. There aren't too many people that want to go to college, go in debt, to make $40,000 a year. If we raise teacher's salaries, we will get the best and the brightest for our next generation.
The system in the U.S is in many ways rigged so that it will benefit the rich. Because of the financial deregulation the very rich have been able to attain a lot of financial power which they have converted to political power. This has of course also affected the school system and the tuition has risen many times in recent decades, like the article mentioned, probably because taxes are kept very low. There is one easy way to solve the problem mentioned in the article and it is something that many of the industrialized countries already have done, make the tuition affordable or, better, remove it completely and fund it through slightly increased taxes. However, universities must be slimmed down and made more effective and in order to reduce the costs. It is amazing for example how large the UMD campus is; every building and every square inch of gras and asphalt represents a costs which students have to pay through their tuition. Focus more on education and making it more available to everyone and less on, as the author of the article writes, flashy buildings and the likes. - Visar Berisha
I disagree with assertion that colleges should rely on meritocracy more than before. Given several other social factors this would still leave the disadvantaged, disadvantaged. Basically, sometimes people have capabilities that cannot or are not yet on their resume.
Intellectual capital is just the vehicle via which "mafia" type of networks let in clever lads who have less of their own connections to leadership circles. Still, without own connections to leadership circles, not even geniuses are let in to sit at decision making tables.
I think this article does a good job of putting in perspective that American ideal of the individual, coming from nothing and working hard to make something of themselves. This is certainly possible and certainly admirable but one must understand that it is easier for some and it is harder for others for reasons that are purely outside of their control.
I think that the article brings the right tool that the United States need. They say, we are not focus on the rich people or the middle who can teach and educate better to their children because they have the means. We are interested in the poor families who do not have the means and do not know how to educate their children to become great professionals. As the article explains, there is a lot of talents that American is wasting because of not giving the right tools to people who want to grow. I think that as the article states, the main point are nurseries, elementary schools, and college. Children lose the interest in education because they do not understand it when they are young. They see that others understand the material, but not them. And that brings lots of questions to the children. "I am not build for this or I am not smart enough" And that later becomes a problem. Education is important. I think that education should be free because not everyone takes advantage of that even when they can. And been education free, the ones who really want to grow will take it. In the case of better nurseries, I am 100% pro for that. Right now, especially in minorities, the day-cares or nurseries are not at all taken care off. Most of these children, whose parents are working. spend thousand of hours with a tv show that do not educate them at all. That is the time when children's brain absorb the most. For instance, in a low-income Hispanic family, the children's day-care is at a home were the children watch tv programs that sometimes are not even adequate to the children's age. Day-cares are expensive and not easy to find, more if one wants education for the children.
This article does a great job explaining how wealth most of the time is inherited by children who are born to wealthy families who were privileged with more opportunities. Intellectual capital is now seen throughout society as extremely important and we see this as college enrollment continues to rise as the years pass. Individuals have begun to realize that receiving a higher level education is essential to achieving wealth and because of this obtaining a bachelors degree is not as big of a deal as it used to be. Children of our generation are now expected to obtain PhD's and enroll in law/graduate school if they want to stick out from the norm and separate themselves from the average US Citizen.
I think this article makes an interesting argument about the connection between a family's income and the future of its children. I thought the suggestion about bettering our pre school and younger education system was an interesting proposition. Many other European countries that are ahead of America have much better early education and I think this is a point that we could really learn from. Allowing an even playing field for children at a young age could help to minimize the equalities as they continue through the education system. Its really disappointing that many preschools are too expensive for lower income families to afford when it is a helpful resource in beginning the education process. If we as a society would focus less on the prestige and cost of our education and more on the necessity of everyone being educated, maybe things could change for the better.
There are a lot of things that I disagreed with about this article. Part of the problem with bad schools is lack of money. If you follow the money, you will see that the worst schools are not only poor themselves, but also the district is also poor. It is easy to say that the money should follow the students but there is not always money available to follow the students. Rich people do not move to poor cities, poor people do. When states need to balance the budget, one of the first things to be cut is education. Part of the problem with bad teachers is pay. If teachers were paid more, more people would be incentivized to become teachers and the general quality of teachers would increase. Another problem I had with this article was the mention of using nurseries. Nurseries are expensive and the people who would benefit from them the most in terms of increasing the intellectual capital of their children cannot afford them. There are a few free early education programs like Head Start, but those programs are also woefully underfunded. This article tries to address inequality, but the author does not seem to mention how many influences scholastic achievement on both the student and school wide level.
I disagree strongly with one of the authors last comments. That all universities should admit students solely on academic merit. I think this is ludicrous. There are many other factors that make up a person, a student, and an intellectual besides academics. Many individuals fail to reach their full academic potential before applying to college, and institutions should recognize potential as well accomplishments.
In this article there were a few things that I did and did not agree with the author on. For example I do agree that intellectual capital is very important it today’ society and those who have it do benefit in a number of ways. But something that the author said at the end of the article was that universities should only take students based on academic merit only made no sense to me. That is secluding students that may have a lot of academic potential but have been unable to develop their skills and passions because of lack of resources presented to them. They may have gone to schools that were located in communities that were underserved, which prevented them from gaining valuable resources that would have allowed them to show admissions officers their academic merit. I believe it is important to take academic merit and social backgrounds into context when thinking about college admissions because individuals could come from schools that were not given the similar amount of resources as other students from other backgrounds.
The article brings up good points about how a lot of the country's wealth is ascribed rather than achieved, but poorly argues about how universities should decide between applicants. Colleges should not only look at academic scores when choosing applicants to accept because it fails to represent a huge population that is not given the resources to become adequately educated. Some schools are deciding not to require SAT scores to apply, which is good because SAT scores reflect testing ability in a few subjects rather than overall intellect, which is essentially how the author is arguing colleges should look at applying students.
“Universities that mould the American elite seek out talented recruits from all backgrounds,” this statement is laughable. University of Maryland is considered a diverse college, but that is only compared to other colleges—who are frighteningly lacking in diversity. We are still a long way from having students from all backgrounds present at universities.
The most important thing I take away from this article is that inequality starts early on, to the point where a child’s future is basically decided on before they are even born. America may have done away with inherited status in the form of royalty, but this has just made more apparent the inherited status of everyone else. And it’s not just family arrangements that perpetuate inequality, location plays a role too. It just seems un-American for schools to be so unequal in the land of equal opportunity, especially compared to how Europe handles it. I would work on improving the quality and equality of public schools to give everyone a chance before even thinking about the mess of colleges.
I don't think there is anything wrong with bright men wanting to have children with bright women, and vice versa. It is the way the system is built, and quite truthfully, I think an aristocracy forming in our cutthroat capitalist society, is only natural. We shouldn't neglect the less talented, less intellectual individuals but the promotion of the "aristocracy" allows our country in the grand scheme of things to flourish.
I believe educations is the key but in today's world educations has become a money generating system. we would love to believe the U.S system is not rigid but how can we expect our country to compete with the rest of the world when funding for public educations is low.
Any article displaying the importance of education will get my attention, and this one is no exception. And after reading this on the heels of the latest riots in my hometown of Baltimore, I can't help but to tie it in with this situation. A number of people within the city used the death of Freddie Gray to show their frustrations that culminated over the past few decades, and I think that it all begins with the education and the opportunities that come from it--or, the lack thereof in the case of America's urban areas. This article gives examples of how easy it is to stay in the upper class once you're already born into it, and consequently how hard it is to get to the upper class if you have no ties to it. And I think the anger we see in these occasional riots stem from the lack of opportunities in the lowest classes. I also like how the article ended by saying that we shouldn't try to not the wealthy down a few pegs, but instead try to "help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents" -Greg Battista
In today's society it is more about who you know than what you know. You can't pick your family, so all people should be able to have the same opportunities starting from birth. People should be able to obtain careers and be able to go to good schools based on their abilities. People who come from families that own corporations will always be set when it comes to getting into good schools and having good jobs because their parents know people and can pull strings to get them these things. Those who do not have these types of connections have two work three times as hard to get noticed by big corporations and excellent schools. I am not inferring that having better opportunities because you come from a certain family is a bad thing, but I believe that employers need to recognize all people who are qualified for job positions as well so that everyone can have an equal opportunity in the competition for these jobs. Many people are well qualified for certain positions but are often overlooked due to employers wanting to keep their business in the family, but if employers expanded their horizons past their lineage, then America will experience great economic growth.
All you have to do is turn on E! for 30 seconds at night to see that wealth in America has been passed down to those who don't know what work is and who are too unintelligent to achieve wealth on their own. This class of people only makes it harder for those who do put in hard work to achieve that level of wealth. -Gregory Brown
I agree with Maria Nasios that a more suitable solution to spread education to lower income families is to introduce early intervention education programs. Rather than implementing an entire system reform, we should focus on making education more affordable and accessible for lower class families. This article is very effective at explaining how richer class citizens receive more opportunities for financial and education growth, unlike lower class citizens. There needs to be more implementations of ways lower class families can benefit from the system and receive the same opportunity for success as those born into the upper class.
As we have learned throughout the semester, becoming rich when being born rich is a lot easier than someone who is born poor. The uphill battle is extremely difficult and rarely happens. This article doesn't come as much as a surprise to me because someone whose father was extremely successful and wealthy will often times give that wealth to their son or daughter. I am not surprised that offspring of past presidents have become president as well because with the wealth and power, they also share the same thoughts and ideas that got them elected.
I beleive that there is an innate instinct leading the way for this development of aristocratic lineage. Most who grow up with parents in high social standing would likely aim to rise to the same status and positions as his family before them, for they know how much they benefited and would like to provide the same lifestyle for their offspring. I do know though that we all have an opportunity to a certain degree to place ourselves among the elite and join ranks with those who inherit it. Though it may be harder, but it is always possible, especially if someone has a goal in mind. - Maulford Smith
ReplyDeleteThe idea about putting money where the students go as far as schools is pretty interesting, but if the author's argument is that the wealthy maintain their status by spreading education, this can be done without a large reform of the system as well. Knowledge can be spread to lower income families through early intervention education programs. Students can be exposed to cheaper methods of knowledge distribution such as books and learning CDs, or can you free educational online resources that expose children to early phonics, reading, and math principles. This is a small change that could be introduced to assist the problem as it exists now, since it is unlikely that the education system will be completely overhauled anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I would love college to be free and for America to be a more educated nation, I also want the economy and the unemployment rate to be as ideal as possible. Competition is what motivates people to work hard in school and in life in general. If everyone gets an undergraduate degree, then only those who go to grad school and so forth will truly be competitive in the work force. People will be starting be starting their careers later in life, meaning they will make less in their lifetime and have more debt than we leave with now. Because no matter how cheap college is, housing and books and all of the little things that pile up will always be there.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree, I disagree that would at least be the first step. With education comes a better nation, but if money is driving people away then that is a set back for our nation. It is usually the same type of people that cannot go to college because of money, but that should not be the factor. Yes, competition is needed but how much is too much, until you start to drive people away.
DeleteSara-Ruth
I found this article very interesting having come from a father with a masters degree in electrical engineering and a mother with only a high school diploma. The two represent a very unique relationship when compared to the effect of educated parents on children. My mom predominately raised me at home as a young child since she did daycare while my father was at work. Even though she wasn't a college educated woman, she was able to raise me in a way that allowed me to be bright enough to score well in school and take a tough major at a good college. More so, they were able to take care of my college which is a huge advantage. I do agree that the nursery program of the United States needs to be improved as i find that my close relationship with my mother was important to my success now.
ReplyDeleteThis article does bring up many interesting and true points. One of the first things it mentions is this country's hostility towards inherited power, yet we have so many people who are "successful," just because of who their parents were. Many former presidents are perfect examples of this; the majority of politicians come from wealthy, powerful families that paved the way for them to also be rich, powerful politicians. It's very hard to against the fact that a bachelor's degree does make someone more than twice as likely to be successful as somebody who did not go to college, but I myself come from a family in which most barely have a high school diploma, but that did not affect me or my decision to go to college. Although my mother did not have the opportunity to go to college, she always instilled the value of education in me from a young age, and I think that's a very important thing for parents to teach their kids at a young age. It's definitely true that it is harder for working class families to send their kids to school because they are worried about rising costs and debt, while wealthy families can easily pay for their children's education and have the ability to raise them in better neighborhoods, send them to better schools, and just better their chances at being successful in life overall. I think that this trend is what makes inequality a growing issue in this country, because the rich keep getting richer and the poor or working class have a harder time meeting ends meet. -Karen Reyes
ReplyDeleteI think the author contradicts his article with the concluding statement "Finally, America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy." The author is arguing here that in order to give all people a chance at an amazing education, universities must only look at academics. But, earlier in the article the author states, "The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared. " This statement implies children of wealthy families get more advantages in terms of education (e.g. a Mandarin tutor). Wouldn't this mean that an education built solely on meritocracy would be biased to begin with?
ReplyDelete-David Teitelbaum
As much as I was supportive of this article in the beginning, the final two paragraphs changed my mind. The statement where "America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy", is contradicted with the previous mentions that American school systems are "one of only three advanced countries where the government spends more on schools in rich areas than in poor ones". In this essence, we have to account that these poor areas do not have as much access to resources and opportunities that are necessary to be competitive for college entrance; hence the fallacy of meritocracy. Curriculums are also not the same, so college preparation is much higher in areas with more resources than those with outdated books and high schoolers who have to work to help their families rather than have as much time to study for SATs. -Samantha McKnew
ReplyDeleteWealth circulates the lives of some Americans. It fuels the accumulation of superior education, status, and other material factors held dear by the few privileged enough to possess it. Though some see that their education and hard work has helped them achieve greatness, members of the top 1 percent refuse to acknowledge that without the money and wealth of their families, their success may not be the same. Ignoring this factor and projecting that all people can “pick themselves up by the bootstrap” makes for one ignorant mind. While there are lazy people in the world, not all lazy people are poor and not all hard working people are rich.
ReplyDeleteWealth circulates the lives of some Americans. It fuels the accumulation of superior education, status, and other material factors held dear by the few privileged enough to possess it. Though some see that their education and hard work has helped them achieve greatness, members of the top 1 percent refuse to acknowledge that without the money and wealth of their families, their success may not be the same. Ignoring this factor and projecting that all people can “pick themselves up by the bootstrap” makes for one ignorant mind. While there are lazy people in the world, not all lazy people are poor and not all hard working people are rich.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the most interesting point made in the article was about America's hostility towards inherited power. I never truly thought about the reason behind this being the fact that the U.S. was founded to rebel against monarchies, and that this mindset could still hold true today, but it definitely makes sense. I also think it's important for parents to place a lot of value on their childrens' early childhood education. I worked at a daycare and after school program for all of high school and witnessed how quickly children learned in a healthy environment, and children without the opportunity to do so are at a huge disadvantage. In the same sense, those who are able to attend college are at a huge disadvantage in life because of the knowledge they receive that others do not. Knowledge is power, and people who are able to gain it in great universities should obtain as much of it as possible because it is inevitable that not everyone will have the opportunity to do so.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting. I never really thought about the connection Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have to former presidents and what it might mean. The comparison to old British Aristocracy was provocative, and well put especially in light of the fact that aristocracy was what the founding fathers fought so hard against. I also think the author made good points about the lack of luck the middle class has as far as college, and the issues with the American school system. Although the author named teacher's unions as one of the forces working against progression towards education reform, I also think that pay has a lot to do with it as well. There aren't too many people that want to go to college, go in debt, to make $40,000 a year. If we raise teacher's salaries, we will get the best and the brightest for our next generation.
ReplyDeleteThe system in the U.S is in many ways rigged so that it will benefit the rich. Because of the financial deregulation the very rich have been able to attain a lot of financial power which they have converted to political power. This has of course also affected the school system and the tuition has risen many times in recent decades, like the article mentioned, probably because taxes are kept very low. There is one easy way to solve the problem mentioned in the article and it is something that many of the industrialized countries already have done, make the tuition affordable or, better, remove it completely and fund it through slightly increased taxes. However, universities must be slimmed down and made more effective and in order to reduce the costs. It is amazing for example how large the UMD campus is; every building and every square inch of gras and asphalt represents a costs which students have to pay through their tuition. Focus more on education and making it more available to everyone and less on, as the author of the article writes, flashy buildings and the likes. - Visar Berisha
ReplyDeleteI disagree with assertion that colleges should rely on meritocracy more than before. Given several other social factors this would still leave the disadvantaged, disadvantaged. Basically, sometimes people have capabilities that cannot or are not yet on their resume.
ReplyDeleteIntellectual capital is just the vehicle via which "mafia" type of networks let in clever lads who have less of their own connections to leadership circles. Still, without own connections to leadership circles, not even geniuses are let in to sit at decision making tables.
ReplyDeleteI think this article does a good job of putting in perspective that American ideal of the individual, coming from nothing and working hard to make something of themselves. This is certainly possible and certainly admirable but one must understand that it is easier for some and it is harder for others for reasons that are purely outside of their control.
ReplyDeleteI think that the article brings the right tool that the United States need. They say, we are not focus on the rich people or the middle who can teach and educate better to their children because they have the means. We are interested in the poor families who do not have the means and do not know how to educate their children to become great professionals. As the article explains, there is a lot of talents that American is wasting because of not giving the right tools to people who want to grow. I think that as the article states, the main point are nurseries, elementary schools, and college. Children lose the interest in education because they do not understand it when they are young. They see that others understand the material, but not them. And that brings lots of questions to the children. "I am not build for this or I am not smart enough" And that later becomes a problem. Education is important. I think that education should be free because not everyone takes advantage of that even when they can. And been education free, the ones who really want to grow will take it. In the case of better nurseries, I am 100% pro for that. Right now, especially in minorities, the day-cares or nurseries are not at all taken care off. Most of these children, whose parents are working. spend thousand of hours with a tv show that do not educate them at all. That is the time when children's brain absorb the most. For instance, in a low-income Hispanic family, the children's day-care is at a home were the children watch tv programs that sometimes are not even adequate to the children's age. Day-cares are expensive and not easy to find, more if one wants education for the children.
ReplyDeleteThis article does a great job explaining how wealth most of the time is inherited by children who are born to wealthy families who were privileged with more opportunities. Intellectual capital is now seen throughout society as extremely important and we see this as college enrollment continues to rise as the years pass. Individuals have begun to realize that receiving a higher level education is essential to achieving wealth and because of this obtaining a bachelors degree is not as big of a deal as it used to be. Children of our generation are now expected to obtain PhD's and enroll in law/graduate school if they want to stick out from the norm and separate themselves from the average US Citizen.
ReplyDeleteI think this article makes an interesting argument about the connection between a family's income and the future of its children. I thought the suggestion about bettering our pre school and younger education system was an interesting proposition. Many other European countries that are ahead of America have much better early education and I think this is a point that we could really learn from. Allowing an even playing field for children at a young age could help to minimize the equalities as they continue through the education system. Its really disappointing that many preschools are too expensive for lower income families to afford when it is a helpful resource in beginning the education process. If we as a society would focus less on the prestige and cost of our education and more on the necessity of everyone being educated, maybe things could change for the better.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of things that I disagreed with about this article. Part of the problem with bad schools is lack of money. If you follow the money, you will see that the worst schools are not only poor themselves, but also the district is also poor. It is easy to say that the money should follow the students but there is not always money available to follow the students. Rich people do not move to poor cities, poor people do. When states need to balance the budget, one of the first things to be cut is education. Part of the problem with bad teachers is pay. If teachers were paid more, more people would be incentivized to become teachers and the general quality of teachers would increase. Another problem I had with this article was the mention of using nurseries. Nurseries are expensive and the people who would benefit from them the most in terms of increasing the intellectual capital of their children cannot afford them. There are a few free early education programs like Head Start, but those programs are also woefully underfunded. This article tries to address inequality, but the author does not seem to mention how many influences scholastic achievement on both the student and school wide level.
ReplyDeleteI disagree strongly with one of the authors last comments. That all universities should admit students solely on academic merit. I think this is ludicrous. There are many other factors that make up a person, a student, and an intellectual besides academics. Many individuals fail to reach their full academic potential before applying to college, and institutions should recognize potential as well accomplishments.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
In this article there were a few things that I did and did not agree with the author on. For example I do agree that intellectual capital is very important it today’ society and those who have it do benefit in a number of ways. But something that the author said at the end of the article was that universities should only take students based on academic merit only made no sense to me. That is secluding students that may have a lot of academic potential but have been unable to develop their skills and passions because of lack of resources presented to them. They may have gone to schools that were located in communities that were underserved, which prevented them from gaining valuable resources that would have allowed them to show admissions officers their academic merit. I believe it is important to take academic merit and social backgrounds into context when thinking about college admissions because individuals could come from schools that were not given the similar amount of resources as other students from other backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteThe article brings up good points about how a lot of the country's wealth is ascribed rather than achieved, but poorly argues about how universities should decide between applicants. Colleges should not only look at academic scores when choosing applicants to accept because it fails to represent a huge population that is not given the resources to become adequately educated. Some schools are deciding not to require SAT scores to apply, which is good because SAT scores reflect testing ability in a few subjects rather than overall intellect, which is essentially how the author is arguing colleges should look at applying students.
ReplyDelete“Universities that mould the American elite seek out talented recruits from all backgrounds,” this statement is laughable. University of Maryland is considered a diverse college, but that is only compared to other colleges—who are frighteningly lacking in diversity. We are still a long way from having students from all backgrounds present at universities.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing I take away from this article is that inequality starts early on, to the point where a child’s future is basically decided on before they are even born. America may have done away with inherited status in the form of royalty, but this has just made more apparent the inherited status of everyone else. And it’s not just family arrangements that perpetuate inequality, location plays a role too. It just seems un-American for schools to be so unequal in the land of equal opportunity, especially compared to how Europe handles it. I would work on improving the quality and equality of public schools to give everyone a chance before even thinking about the mess of colleges.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is anything wrong with bright men wanting to have children with bright women, and vice versa. It is the way the system is built, and quite truthfully, I think an aristocracy forming in our cutthroat capitalist society, is only natural. We shouldn't neglect the less talented, less intellectual individuals but the promotion of the "aristocracy" allows our country in the grand scheme of things to flourish.
ReplyDeleteI believe educations is the key but in today's world educations has become a money generating system. we would love to believe the U.S system is not rigid but how can we expect our country to compete with the rest of the world when funding for public educations is low.
ReplyDeleteAny article displaying the importance of education will get my attention, and this one is no exception. And after reading this on the heels of the latest riots in my hometown of Baltimore, I can't help but to tie it in with this situation. A number of people within the city used the death of Freddie Gray to show their frustrations that culminated over the past few decades, and I think that it all begins with the education and the opportunities that come from it--or, the lack thereof in the case of America's urban areas. This article gives examples of how easy it is to stay in the upper class once you're already born into it, and consequently how hard it is to get to the upper class if you have no ties to it. And I think the anger we see in these occasional riots stem from the lack of opportunities in the lowest classes. I also like how the article ended by saying that we shouldn't try to not the wealthy down a few pegs, but instead try to "help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents"
ReplyDelete-Greg Battista
In today's society it is more about who you know than what you know. You can't pick your family, so all people should be able to have the same opportunities starting from birth. People should be able to obtain careers and be able to go to good schools based on their abilities. People who come from families that own corporations will always be set when it comes to getting into good schools and having good jobs because their parents know people and can pull strings to get them these things. Those who do not have these types of connections have two work three times as hard to get noticed by big corporations and excellent schools. I am not inferring that having better opportunities because you come from a certain family is a bad thing, but I believe that employers need to recognize all people who are qualified for job positions as well so that everyone can have an equal opportunity in the competition for these jobs. Many people are well qualified for certain positions but are often overlooked due to employers wanting to keep their business in the family, but if employers expanded their horizons past their lineage, then America will experience great economic growth.
ReplyDeleteAll you have to do is turn on E! for 30 seconds at night to see that wealth in America has been passed down to those who don't know what work is and who are too unintelligent to achieve wealth on their own. This class of people only makes it harder for those who do put in hard work to achieve that level of wealth.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
I agree with Maria Nasios that a more suitable solution to spread education to lower income families is to introduce early intervention education programs. Rather than implementing an entire system reform, we should focus on making education more affordable and accessible for lower class families. This article is very effective at explaining how richer class citizens receive more opportunities for financial and education growth, unlike lower class citizens. There needs to be more implementations of ways lower class families can benefit from the system and receive the same opportunity for success as those born into the upper class.
ReplyDeleteAs we have learned throughout the semester, becoming rich when being born rich is a lot easier than someone who is born poor. The uphill battle is extremely difficult and rarely happens. This article doesn't come as much as a surprise to me because someone whose father was extremely successful and wealthy will often times give that wealth to their son or daughter. I am not surprised that offspring of past presidents have become president as well because with the wealth and power, they also share the same thoughts and ideas that got them elected.
ReplyDelete