<p>Cheap way out. Colleges around the country - from Amherst to Smith to Occidental have proven pretty conclusively that students with lower test scores, coming from lower economic backgrounds, can compete successfully with their upper income peers DESPITE poorer preparation, fewer enrichment courses, etc. The old 1400 SAT is simply a 1200 plus $100,000 in family income. The emperor has no clothes, as far as the “elite” colleges go.</p>
<p>But if you ask me (this probably should go to another thread) poorer kids are less likely to go on BECAUSE of the systematic social stratification that occurs in schools, and more of the same is like prescribing the hair of the dog that bit you.</p>
<p>We know how much rich folks think it takes to educate a well-to-do child well, one with enriched homelife, all the opportunities that can be afforded outside of school, no ‘learning disabilities’. $30,000 year, consistently for 12 years. (plus endowment income). Why would we assume it would be different for a poor one?</p>
<p>Money is not the only answer. It is just the necessary one. Money at grade pre-K, money at grade 6, money at grade 12, money at college. Once you know you are going to have continued access to the money, you can do all kinds of interesting things. Just like Exeter.</p>
<p>Now - back to the subject: that is a CLASS thing. The rich have sold us the bill of goods that money is not the answer to educational and social woes (since they would have to pay for it!) But watch what they do, not what they say. I’ve yet to see an Andover parent transfer his kid to DeWitt Clinton because he knows that, when it comes to education, money doesn’t matter.</p>