<p>It’s a great essay, Xiggi. Far better than I could write about my experiences. Thanks for sharing it with us.</p>
<p>I liked it, too, xiggi. It put you right there with her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if they were it still seems high to me, given that most of Harvard’s application pool is qualified. Even 30 years ago Harvard rejected a cousin of mine who was a legacy, so I know that there are no guarantees - especially for the merely good students. </p>
<p>If my son doesn’t get into MIT this Saturday (where legacies count for nothing), it will be interesting to see if my son gets into Harvard.</p>
<p>Mathmom, Best of luck to your son this Saturday. May the force be with him!</p>
<p>I’ve already informed the MIT admissions officers that they will be expected to change the legacy admissions policy by approximately 2029 (2006+5+18), when my first superpowered double-legacy baby is expected to be applying. ;)</p>
<p>It cracks me up that we’re apparently conservative for believing that no one ethnic group has a monopoly on academic merit, whatever its SAT score average. With apologies to mini, stay the course?</p>
<p>xiggi and cptofthehouse :</p>
<p>What do you think would be the real policy which would address the problem in inner city school districts. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>putting more money in education seems a nice strategy by hiring competent teachers who can really make the differnce. But most of the good teachers tend to go to less problematic school district after they have acquired skills. How much additional money would be enough to lure them from excellent school districts?</p></li>
<li><p>Would american tax payers force politicians to spent billions of dollars to improve education system in inner cities. The key lies in suburban population whose house value is directly connected with school district. Would they come behind and would be ready to see this as a national crisis and willing to pay and sacifice their economic interests.</p></li>
<li><p>Inner city parents (irrespective of race) who are left behind find try to move to better school district the very first chance they get and this creates more problem for the remaming people as the tax base shrink. </p></li>
<li><p>What about parent’s personal resposnbilty to raise their kids, I mean as a parent one has to make sacrifice when kid comes as you have to attend kids need over yours. Sometimes even a parent actualy creates a problem for their own kid. How do you resolve this issue. Even majority of best teacehrs can not put their life on hold and be there emotionally for these kids who really need help.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^^—^^^</p>
<p>Everything will be bandaids on a wooden leg until we find the courage to completely overhaul the funding system and administration of our K-12. Sandwiched between a competitive system from kindergarten through the end of elementary school and the best tertiary system in the world, there is a gigantic and depressing abyss where talent and resources disappear as fast as we pour it in. More money is not the solution; that has not worked in generations. </p>
<p>There are a number of partial solutions that could send us in the right direction, and some that have been known for more than fifty years. Maybe our country should have paid as much attention to the great Chicago man’s theories on education as we did to his theories in economics. </p>
<p>Breaking up the suffocating grip of the unions on education, allowing the money to follow the students, and decoupling the funding of education from home ownership would be nice. </p>
<p>Too bad that this is as utopian as a the promise of a competent and decent public administration.</p>
<p>
They alreay do. The worst school districts in NJ have by far the highest $$$ per pupil spending. The money comes from suburban property taxes. Xiggi is right that more money is not the solution We have been funding failing districts generously for generations.</p>
<p>stickershock, This is so funny. I was just posting about our NJ property taxes on the Christian Monitor thread.</p>
<p>Equality of spending across districts with different populations and different needs will not yield improvement in underperforming school districts. This does not mean that money is often spent unwisely but the reality is that
schools districts are expected to compensate for problems that originate outside schools. </p>
<p>A district where the majority of students live in households without books will need to invest more in libraries to put its students on an equal footing with students from more affluent district. A district with more immigrant children who are English learners will need to invest more in teaching English to these children. Schools located in neighborhoods with a high incidence of crime will need to put in security measures unheard of in suburban districts. And one could go on. Many of the problems ought to be addressed elsewhere than in the schools. Violence and crime, for example, should be an issue for the community. But unless and until they are eradicated, they will affect what happens in schools, and schools need to deal with their consequences.</p>
<p>Neighboring districts can differ hugely in the problems they face. Our school has been deemed safe by students and teachers alike in a survey conducted a few years ago. In a nearby district, the school has metal detectors and doors are barred to prevent outsiders from entering.</p>
<p>To tie the education of our children to some contrived school district map (and then to property taxes in that contrived area) makes zero sense. From the home we sold in 1999 to the highway, there were maybe twenty families with school age children and 4 different school districts. (Now that is an efficient bus route!).</p>
<p>Curmudgeon: Does Texas use property taxes for school funding? </p>
<p>I’m just chuckling about the size difference of Texas & NJ. I could throw a stone & hit some major highways. Our town of 27,000 people has no busing because every one of the seven schools is in walking distance. How far was it from your house to the highway?</p>
<p>One huge money waster in NJ is the vast number of schools districts. Virtually every town has its own district, complete with administrative costs that would more sensibly be shared with some type of regional agreements/arrangements. But everyone likes to be the lord of his own little fiefdom.</p>
<p>SS, From the old house to the highway maybe about two miles. Now on the ranch it’s 4/5ths of a mile to the front gate. 1 1/2 miles to the nearest neighbor. Then 8 more miles to the Farm to Market Road. (we call that the highway. LOL) There’s not twenty familes in 10,000 acres. Well, not human families anyway. </p>
<p>It’s a 14 minute drive to school. But that is about 10 miles. LOL. </p>
<p>Yes, each District is a separate taxing entity- a political subdivision that does not necessarily follow any other political subdivision’s boundaries. Some districts have tens of thousands of students, some have less than a hundred.</p>
<p>when did everyone get under the impression that the college admin process was fair to students? or moral? or correct?</p>
<p>there is nothing in left in life that is fair. people get screwed everyday. ever been passed over on a promotion to an inferior peer? happens all the time.</p>
<p>These schools are trying to shape a campus to get the right mix of brains, talents and maximize tuition dollars. and they have every right to.</p>
<p>One reason why the elites continue to bring in legacies and others that dont have the stats is, according to an article that I read recently, the recent admits at Ivys over the last 10-15 years simply dont give money back like previous generations. Seems like the old white guys gave a whole lot more back.</p>
<p>The biggest disadvantage a child has is a harmful home environment. Children who live in poverty with parents who are nurturing often do well. Poverty and other problems go hand in hand because the hardship and stress that go with not having enough resources to meet basic needs, cause alot of very damaging problems. Also the environment–neighborhood, people, crime, schools tend to be sub par for those who are poor. But I have seen sizeable pockets of economically deprived families do very well raising their kids. The student ghetto is a good place for families who are raising children on a shoestring. Though is not the safest place in the world,and not considered upscale, in the least, there are resources there that are available for such families. Those I know who lived there are often post grads or former university students that never made it over the economic hump but are able to impart their educational and cultural values to their children. They are aware of the university resources and tap them. I know my old school does a lot of outreach for kids in the not so hot neighborhood around campus, and there are student community service groups that help the neighbors. You cannot get this sort of services through the government. I also saw Asian families packed in tiny apartments and houses, some on the edge of a school boundary to get their kid in a good inner city school. Around here, I see some living three families to a house to get the kids into a good school district. They may not have money, but these families are bound and determined that their kids get a premier education. Given that they are economically challenged and their families are hardship cases, they will do well in elite college admissions as a group. But when you are talking about poor families, these situations are a drop in the bucket.</p>
<p>Most poor families have more important challenges than educating their children. Emotional and psychiatric and health problems often abound. Serious problems with the law. Problems with the dangerous neighborhood. When you live in the path of drive by shootings, and there are folks who pepper the area that have proven they will kill you if you look at them wrong, makes for a stressful life. Getting your check cashed becomes a challenge. Many, many things we do without a thought, is a big deal for many people. SO when you get the kids by age 5 for half day kindergarden, you are already at a huge disadvantage in bringing him up to standard. It’s a miracle that we get so many of the kids even to the schools with the paperwork and immunization requirements we have. What to do next with them has been a subject of disagreement for years with no consensus. It does take money, no doubt about it, but we haven’t come up with the best way to direct the money. The breakfast and lunch program is a necessity, cuz some of those kids are malnourished. Giving them two good meals a day is a start on that problem. Then comes teaching them behaviour so that they can focus and learn. Teaching them to speak so they can communicate. THe 3 R’s are not even on the plate yet. With a lot of extra things to cover, the school day is too short, and yet assigning homework when the home environment and parental interest is not there is like spitting in the wind. An after school program with a hefty nutritious snack, supervised play, focused tutoring and homework time would be what I would add to the schedule. But then you do have to let them go home. And I guess you impress upon the parents that they have to get them to bed at a decent hour. If they could just read 15 minutes–comics a good choice cuz at this point you want them to read, the subject is not as important, and you can work your way up in quality with comics, each night and get a decent night’s sleep. I think that would be the best we could do. By the way, I have seen in some of the worst neighborhoods, some of the most at risk aged males sitting on a step reading comics. That may be the way to get them going.<br>
Once in middle school, integration with other socio-economic schools becomes important, and that is a very hot subject. THere should be NO middle schools in dangerous areas, and the population should be a mixed on interms of socio economics. I would not start at elementary school, though I am not firm on what grade middle school should start. I believe the kids in elementary have too many issues in some of these areas to dump into an upper middle class environment. It also empties many of those schools when you do that, as parents don’t like that mix. By the time you get to middle school, hopefully you have brought up the standards of the disadvantaged kids, and enough of the upper income kids are performing such that they do not have transfer options to private schools. Also when kids are that age, even upper income famiies are suffering income problems, divorce issues, etc where the transfer of schools is not as imminent as when the kids first start school when you will do anything for them. I have watched this transition many times and know it is a real phenomona.<br>
I am referring to the bottom of the barrel kids, by the way. Not the slightly disadvantaged families . When I lived in Shaker Hts, the district, a fine one, was integrated with neighboring city of Cleveland kids. Though there was a distinct socio eco difference that fell along the border, it was generally not that severe. Those families who lived in that strip often moved there to get those Shaker schools, and were motivated to make it work, so though, yes there was some adjustment issues they were not severe. Not like certain areas of Cleveland where just sticking those kids into a district like Shaker Hts would be a total disaster without some work on those kids. I had a friend who lived and worked in such a district. She sent her kids to private schools, and to a public school in the district where her husband worked (illegal, I believe). The issues that the kids in her neighborhood school faced were appalling. As Marite points out, there are things like security, not just around the school, but for each kid coming and going to and from school is an issue. I think a police station should be right there with satellite kiosk type stations all around such areas where there is subsidized housing so that the crud cannot come anywhere near a school zone. There should be special subsidies for families with children to live within this safety zone, and with zealous patrolling, it would make those who have criminal records and intentions very uncomfortable to hang around there.</p>
<p>I do want to share with you a little story. Where we once lived, a strip mall was going waaaaay down hill. The crowd that was starting the frequent the place was getting on the dangerous side and several incidents started making the police blotters regularly. This was on a bus line, and because of the dollar theatre and the cheap eats, Value City and the design of the parking lot, it was becoming a hang out. When a the other major store moved out, leaving a huge vacant space, I was sure, it was the end of that place. Well, Borders moved in, complete with cafe. Next to it a Discovery Zone. They were like crosses in the face of the vampires. The place was then more patrolled by local cops, and the mall increased security. I think some civil rights were violated by those groups, but with the upscale crowd coming to the books stores and the Zone, with all those mamas fiercely protecting their kids and scowling at anything that looked questionable, the atmosphere began to change. The dollar theatre upped its price, revamped and started showing different types of movies, kiddie shows for the afternoon, and it became a preschool magnet. Pick up the little ones from half day K or Pre K or nursery, grab a lunch at the mall, see a movie or Discovery Zone, or a story hour at Borders. By pooling resources, one mom would take a group to the movie or the zone, freeing the others. The mall is now doing very well, and the old crowd is gone. A miracle, in my mind.</p>
<p>cpt: I notice that your little success story is a result of capitalism…not government.</p>
<p>Yup. It was. Government could take a lesson from it. Many local government officials are concerned with capitalism and using it properly have achieved some great social results And some not so great ones.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t like comments like these.</p>
<p>People say that “life isn’t fair.” Then, they approve of making life more unfair than it already is.</p>
<p>I agree, Fabrizio. One of the comments highlight this thread is the Princeton official’s quote, “Anything that appears unfair is under scrutiny” (may not be exact). And so it should be. But bear in mind that there are different types of unfairness. Many times the choices are among different sorts of unfairness, and so you can’t win.</p>
<p>Off the subject but of relevance I believe.</p>
<p>Our federal government actively promotes AA through preferential treatment of disadvantaged groups. No bid contracts for minority and/or female businesses and jobs for federally funded projects that end with “native preference applies”, ( three such want ads in our local paper last night), are just two examples of federal AA. Regardless of whether you believe this to be right or wrong, it is clearly legal. What obligation does a private university have above and beyond what is done by our government?</p>