The 1%

[Periwinkle]

<p>SevenDad, I’m not convinced. Sorry. There are many, many children of the top 1%, 5%, 10%, etc., who don’t end up in the running for a Rhodes Scholarship. Looking at lists for this year’s and last year’s Rhodes Scholarships, it does not go exclusively to the Ivy League, Stanford, and MIT. Even if a student attends the aforementioned institutions, one can’t assume they’re children of the 1% by income. </p>

<p>As the Rhodes requires athletic, as well as academic and leadership prowess, I’d suspect the Ivies and others do well because they don’t offer athletic scholarships. Thus, their athletes are probably able to spend more time on non-athletic pursuits, as their coaches can’t threaten to yank their scholarships.</p>

<p>Such articles in the NYT seem to be aimed at a small subsection of their readership: the affluent New York parents who are playing keep-up-with-the-Joneses. Mind you, the cost of living is so high in New York City, that the sort of kid-cultivation which is widespread in the suburbs might be out of reach of even fairly wealthy New Yorkers. So, if you live and work in New York, you might not realize that it’s easier to encourage a kid to excel in the cello if you don’t have to pay NYC rents and tuition.</p>

<p>

Even with economic outreach, the vast majority of students at the best schools are likely to be wealthy, well-appointed young people groomed and professionalized at an early age precisely so they would impress admissions officers. Most low-income and even middle-income students cannot meet the academic and experiential benchmarks that elite schools set.</p>

<p>Indeed, there are very few poor superachievers.

</p>

<p>There are very few superachievers, period. I think the elite colleges set academic and character benchmarks for applicants. They do take experiences into account, but sending a kid across the world to dig a ditch won’t get him in.</p>

<p>DIFFERENT, BUT RELATED TOPIC:</p>

<p>I find Charles Murray’s upcoming book to be a more interesting take on splits in American culture. [Charles</a> Murray on the New American Divide - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html]Charles”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html)</p>

<p>

Over the past 50 years, that common civic culture has unraveled. We have developed a new upper class with advanced educations, often obtained at elite schools, sharing tastes and preferences that set them apart from mainstream America. At the same time, we have developed a new lower class, characterized not by poverty but by withdrawal from America’s core cultural institutions.

</p>