Private Schools Have Become Truly Obscene

[Shogun]

i've heard this as well, friends teaching in LA with kids who aint turn in their assignment, yet between complaining parents and politics around school rankings, they can't give the kid a 0. it's stupid that parents enable this

Yeah the idea behind that is that giving kids a 45 or whatever instead of a 0 keeps them alive and still able to recover if they put forth even a little effort.
Obviously it gets taken advantage of, though.

 

[get these nets]

Agree with Dora.

I will take it a step further and say this is sort of a hit piece against low hanging fruit.
Water is wet, and the wealthy pour their resources into giving their children every possible advantage in life.

I'd imagine that the elite northeast boarding and day schools were founded by the same families who started the elite northeast universities.
Students not from those high schools, or their regional counterparts being a sizable population at elite colleges is probably a relatively new thing.
The article says that the Exeter set makes up a quarter of the incoming classes at some of these colleges, that has to be down from the 50+, and 75+ percentages from decades ago.
The article not mentioning this was odd.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Now which level of parents does it more? That and the rich schools have way more AP and IB courses than poorer schools.

i've seen it both ways, but for different reasons. the academic parent is doing it because they know grades will matter, the poor or less academically inclined parent does it because you better not flunk their child

lastly, we're going to simply have to disagree with this AP, as I've said multiple times, people understand the weighting of AP classes, my HS actually gave us an unweighted GPA - the colleges I applied to would weight my GPA per my AP and Honors grades. grade inflation happens in college as well where there's no AP courses. that's not what i've ever seen grade inflation to mean

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

She sees herself as a rising member of the wealthy elite and thus is defensive and critical of anything that calls out their excesses. In order to justify her own actions and position, she believes in a fantasy world where there are no limited resources and the outsized expenditures and advantages given to the rich somehow have no effect on the poor and working-class whatsoever. As a posturing wealthy liberal, she blames the poor themselves, government, society, etc. for failing the disadvantaged, but certainly doesn't want to blame the very processes that keep rich people rich or see anything that created the circumstances that give her advantages to be put under scrutiny.

(Note - she's also very very sensitive about this, so don't point it out overtly or she'll hold a lasting grudge against you.)

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

@dora_da_destroyer you seem a bit personally triggered. Just sayin...

how so? because i don't care to whine about elite high schools? education was once for the elite only, then when it hit the masses, elite institutions arose. people can whine about that or we can focus on increasing the competency of the schools that the masses attend. if yall have a problem with that take, i give not one fukk. people here stay worried about shyt that's been going on for centuries and won't change while not ever focusing on the things that should/could change.

billionaires, aristocrats, politicians, celebrities aint getting rid of the harvard westlakes, exeters, and andovers

 

[ogc163]

Agree with Dora.

I will take it a step further and say this is sort of a hit piece against low hanging fruit.
Water is wet, and the wealthy pour their resources into giving their children every possible advantage in life.

I'd imagine that the elite northeast boarding and day schools were founded by the same families who started the elite northeast universities.
Students not from those high schools, or their regional counterparts being a sizable population at elite colleges is probably a relatively new thing.
The article says that the Exeter set makes up a quarter of the incoming classes at some of these colleges, that has to be down from the 50+, and 75+ percentages from decades ago.
The article not mentioning this was odd.

This implies that this is common knowledge, on a website filled with primarily working class and first generation white working class Black men I would argue that it is not. People already know that the wealthy have more resources and take advantage of them, but the degree of that advantage is probably not known.

So you already knew that the gaps between Dalton, Avenues, Choate and Stuyvesant were so substantial? You already knew that 1/2 of Black kids at the Ivy's come from a handful of schools? You and Dora's responses are flippant and unnecessarily aggy for no good reason.

These types of articles and articles discussing black academic culture, resource gaps, and network gaps can happily co-exist on HL. There is no crowding-out effect as a result of discussing the state of private schools and their role in the college admissions hunger games environment. Further, it's not like there are a plethora of articles discussing this topic, especially in connection to poor Black students. But I am more than happy to read some links you can provide from major or medium size outlets discussing this topic in a similar vein since it's representative in your opinion of "low hanging fruit".

 

[get these nets]

This implies that this is common knowledge, on a website filled with primarily working class and first generation white working class Black men I would argue that it is not. People already know that the wealthy have more resources and take advantage of them, but the degree of that advantage is probably not known.

So you already knew that the gaps between Dalton, Avenues, Choate and Stuyvesant were so substantial? You already knew that 1/2 of Black kids at the Ivy's come from a handful of schools? You and Dora's responses are flippant and unnecessarily aggy for no good reason.

These types of articles and articles discussing black academic culture, resource gaps, and network gaps can happily co-exist on HL. There is no crowding-out effect as a result of discussing the state of private schools and their role in the college admissions hunger games environment. Further, it's not like there are a plethora of articles discussing this topic, especially in connection to poor Black students. But I am more than happy to read some links you can provide from major or medium size outlets discussing this topic in a similar vein since it's representative in your opinion of "low hanging fruit".

Rich people are the low hanging fruit. If an individual does something that is immoral or criminal, it should be pointed out. Some writers and reporters have convinced people that wealthy people engaging in behavior that promotes their self interests are wrong for doing so.
Which actions described in this article aren't done by parents in lower socioeconomic settings?(to a lesser degree)
The title of the article has the word obscene in it. What did you see as obscene?

Rich people should have to apologize for what? Existing? Breathing air?

I don't like pile on threads. Pick a scapegoat, and along the way they get accused(as a group) of everything under the sun. Whether the evidence supports it or not, people cosign it because hey, fukk those people anyway.

I didn't question your right to post the article, just my take on the slant of it and the commentary in the thread.

My take on the education related topics is (in my opinion) the practical one.
When the Stuyvesant High NYC story was big, I followed up on what Stuyvesant/Brooklyn Tech alumni were doing to try to address the problem. You saw the threads and weighed in. They funded weekend courses for prospective Black applicants to prep for what amounts to the entrance exam. The alumni also fought to reverse the board's earlier decision to close Gifted and Talented programs in elementary schools in Black neighborhoods.

 

[ogc163]

Rich people are the low hanging fruit. If an individual does something that is immoral or criminal, it should be pointed out. Some writers and reporters have convinced people that wealthy people engaging in behavior that promotes their self interests are wrong for doing so.

Again, the main point of the article is not about rich people per se, but about the disproportionate amount of power and access, a small number of schools have. The numbers in the article are surprising even for people who have some knowledge of the advantages these schools have. Coming to the conclusion that the article is simply about rich people is overly reductionist.

I don't like pile on threads. Pick a scapegoat, and along the way they get accused(as a group) of everything under the sun. Whether the evidence supports it or not, people cosign it because hey, fukk those people anyway.

How is this a pile on thread, when this topic is rarely discussed? You keep making assertions without basis.

I think parents and future parents benefit from knowing about what occurs at elite private schools if they a) want to take advantage of the opportunities that come with attending these type of schools b) want potential insight regarding their children's future peers c) want a greater perspective regarding the larger academic landscape, especially at elite levels.

Thus, focusing on the fairness or lack thereof is one perspective one could take but is not the only one available. No one in this thread has explicitly or implicitly put forward the idea that the current state of education is the result of rich people, and so your scapegoat point rings hollow.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

how so? because i don't care to whine about elite high schools?

Someone who "doesn't care" ignores the thread and moves on. Yet you have the most posts in the thread. You clearly do care and are actively trying to derail discussion of the topic.

education was once for the elite only, then when it hit the masses, elite institutions arose. people can whine about that or we can focus on increasing the competency of the schools that the masses attend.

Except that a two-tiered system ensures that the schools for the masses will not improve. Why would the elite work to improve the schools their children don't attend? You yourself have openly said that you identify with upper-middle class white folk more than you identify with most Black folk. That's the exact reason that you always cape for their systems. We don't expect any of you to be any different so long as you and your children have zero skin in the game - your energy will be spent ensuring that your own systems maintain their advantage.

Rich people are the low hanging fruit. If an individual does something that is immoral or criminal, it should be pointed out. Some writers and reporters have convinced people that wealthy people engaging in behavior that promotes their self interests are wrong for doing so.
Which actions described in this article aren't done by parents in lower socioeconomic settings?(to a lesser degree)
The title of the article has the word obscene in it. What did you see as obscene?

Rich people should have to apologize for what? Existing? Breathing air?

Breh this exact same rant could have been scripted for right-wing radio.

Literally every power system in America serves rich folk first. They only extend to other folk if significant agitation forces the issue. This article explains why there hasn't been meaningful positive movement in education - cause rich folk bypass the systems. In fact, they are actively invested in ensuring that other systems remain inferior to their own, in order to reduce competition. It's not enough for their children to have a good education, they have to acquire every position of power that privilege can possibly give them.

You're frequently tag-teaming Dora in these threads and it seems the both of you fail to understand the fundamental reality of American life. Our system delegates resources disproportionately to the top, and these are finite resources. You can fight for equality or you can fight for a new system where such resources are no longer so limited. But don't cape for the current system and then fake like it is ever going to work any differently than it is currently working.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Someone who "doesn't care" ignores the thread and moves on. Yet you have the most posts in the thread. You clearly do care and are actively trying to derail discussion of the topic.

my third post said exactly why i came in this thread...and i have the most posts because people keep quoting me, funny how that works

Except that a two-tiered system ensures that the schools for the masses will not improve. Why would the elite work to improve the schools their children don't attend? You yourself have openly said that you identify with upper-middle class white folk more than you identify with most Black folk. That's the exact reason that you always cape for their systems. We don't expect any of you to be any different so long as you and your children have zero skin in the game - your energy will be spent ensuring that your own systems maintain their advantage.

this is a fukking lie... please find that post. and who said the elite need to work to improve the schools they don't use? you're putting words in my posts that were never there

 

[Ozymandeas]

Appreciate the article OP. It was a good read. While we know the rich have always played by different rules and monopolized opportunities for their children, reading how grotesque it really is behind closed doors puts it in a new light. At least for me and most average people. The average person doesn't know about Dalton or Sidwell or Choate (well maybe from Power), or that Choate raised $200 million dollars in one year. The average person doesn't know about rich kids getting to take SATs untimed. And they definitely don't know one school is sending 45 kids a year to Harvard. That's good information to know.

@Rhakim Not surprised in the slightest about Finland. Explains a lot.

Some of the posts in here are dismissive and the posters sound triggered. I have no dog in this and that's how those posts came off to me. On one hand, its good to have different viewpoints but, at least attack the substance of the article. Don't attack someone for wanting to have the conversation. That's why we are here.

 

[get these nets]

.

This implies that this is common knowledge, on a website filled with primarily working class and first generation white working class Black men I would argue that it is not. People already know that the wealthy have more resources and take advantage of them, but the degree of that advantage is probably not known.

About 2 years ago, to the day, Operation Varsity Blues fed. case broke and dominated the airwaves for weeks, and was a headline story for months.
Because the scandal involved the business elite, Hollywood stars, and college sports.....it was covered across multiple media platforms.


Was definitely discussed by people of varying backgrounds, including us "working class and first gen. white collar Black men".
Multipage threads about it in different forums, including HL.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/fbi-alleges-wealthy-parents-bribed-colleges.697050/

So the "infomercial actor" reaction by some of the people in this thread is disingenuous.



Because Varsity Blues was a hot topic for weeks, one of the go to expert panelists on these shows was Daniel Golden. He lifted the lid on these tactics in 2006 in his book, and when a national spotlight was on it, he weighed in on the illegal activities that got those parents arrested, and on the tactics that are mentioned in this article.

Do a search of his name on the forum.
.

So you already knew that the gaps between Dalton, Avenues, Choate and Stuyvesant were so substantial? You already knew that 1/2 of Black kids at the Ivy's come from a handful of schools? You and Dora's responses are flippant and unnecessarily aggy for no good reason.

Again, the Stuyvesant High story broke nationally. Was covered across platforms tailored to different audiences. And topic of multi page threads on this forum.

Discussion is good, but the implication that your posts are bringing this information to Coli members for the first time would be false. Verifiably false.

These types of articles and articles discussing black academic culture, resource gaps, and network gaps can happily co-exist on HL. There is no crowding-out effect as a result of discussing the state of private schools and their role in the college admissions hunger games environment. Further, it's not like there are a plethora of articles discussing this topic, especially in connection to poor Black students. But I am more than happy to read some links you can provide from major or medium size outlets discussing this topic in a similar vein since it's representative in your opinion of "low hanging fruit".

The two national stories mentioned here provided the light for Black educators and public intellectuals to write and speak about wealth and race as they relate to college admissions . Check the 3 month period after each story broke.
Again, the Varsity Blues story was a mainstream hot topic for weeks and it had legs because it involved the WSJ crowd, the Access Hollywood crowd, and the ESPN crowd.

I bet Michael Eric Dyson appeared on platforms catering to all three of those crowds and weighed in race and class.

 

[ogc163]

About 2 years ago, to the day, Operation Varsity Blues fed. case broke and dominated the airwaves for weeks, and was a headline story for months.
Because the scandal involved the business elite, Hollywood stars, and college sports.....it was covered across multiple media platforms.


Was definitely discussed by people of varying backgrounds, including us "working class and first gen. white collar Black men".
Multipage threads about it in different forums, including HL.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/fbi-alleges-wealthy-parents-bribed-colleges.697050/

So the "infomercial actor" reaction by some of the people in this thread is disingenuous.



Because Varsity Blues was a hot topic for weeks, one of the go to expert panelists on these shows was Daniel Golden. He lifted the lid on these tactics in 2006 in his book, and when a national spotlight was on it, he weighed in on the illegal activities that got those parents arrested, and on the tactics that are mentioned in this article.

Again the focus of the article revolves around the concentration and degree of advantages, you bringing up the Operation Varsity Blues cheating scandal is a red herring. You are conflating an outlier situation(in this context) that involved cheating, celebrity, and federal investigation vs actions that are prevalent, legal and involve people that are generally not famous--no one would expect them to be covered to the same extent, nor discussed in the same manner.

I'll acknowledge that the main point of the article and the scandal both showed the level of advantage present at the top, but the scandal from a values standpoint revolved around the role of dishonesty along with the advantage, not advantage per se or degrees of advantage. Even with the similarities, the scandal is not relevant to the article nor the points I have presented in this discussion.

And so, no. The scandal and the discussion afterward aren't representative of a prevalent conversation on the issues present in this thread.

Discussion is good, but the implication that your posts are bringing this information to Coli members for the first time would be false. Verifiably false.

I'm struggling to follow your line of thought so elaborate. Are you referring to the discussion of a) The role of Black kids getting into Stuyvesant and other specialized schools or b) The disparity between Stuyvesant and elite private schools?

Because the main part of the article I highlighted and afterward commented on was about issue b. And again given the accompanying notoriety, narratives, and competitiveness of Stuyvesant I am surprised that elite private schools still have exponential advantages over them. I don't think that piece of information along with the Black Ivy information is intuitive, common knowledge, or of little to no utility offline, on this forum, or in HL.

 

[Consigliere]

Sidwell and Quaker values are a part of regular life for most of their alumni. And the larger community never goes away. I still attend meetings for worship. So even if the school has become a place for the wealthy elite, the intent that the school was founded with carries on. The author of this article is out of touch if they are lumping SFS in with Dalton.

The real question is why is the public school experience so lacking and why aren’t there more private schools for parents who care about the quality of their kids educations?

 

[get these nets]

Breh this exact same rant could have been scripted for right-wing radio.

Literally every power system in America serves rich folk first. They only extend to other folk if significant agitation forces the issue. This article explains why there hasn't been meaningful positive movement in education - cause rich folk bypass the systems. In fact, they are actively invested in ensuring that other systems remain inferior to their own, in order to reduce competition. It's not enough for their children to have a good education, they have to acquire every position of power that privilege can possibly give them.

You're frequently tag-teaming Dora in these threads and it seems the both of you fail to understand the fundamental reality of American life. Our system delegates resources disproportionately to the top, and these are finite resources. You can fight for equality or you can fight for a new system where such resources are no longer so limited. But don't cape for the current system and then fake like it is ever going to work any differently than it is currently working.

The impetus for the last significant change was the Civil Rights Movement. That was a fight for equality that won access and protections for Black Americans, that should have been their birthright. Those gains fought for by AAs extended to expand those opportunities to every other person in America who wasn't born wealthy WASP and male.

That was the major victory of the ongoing fight for equality.

Now,this fight for a new system that you've mentioned before. How realistic is it that the system ever gets overhauled and replaced? What will provide the impetus for that to occur? And why/how will those looking to create a new system succeed, where others have failed?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you are hoping that this system is replaced, with no practical reason to believe that it will. In that case, it would be you who fails to understand the fundamental realities of American life.