Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 308 posts

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#41

Post by adamnemecek »

kbenson wrote: post #32
adamnemecek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fundamentally I think that we have to get rid of the concept of a teacher and replace it with person who helps you when you get stuck. I think that fundamentally, the school should just teach you to read as soon as possible and from there on it should just give you things to read. You should also have much more freedom in what you want to study, e.g. if you want to check out idk, optical engineering in high school (e…

> I think that fundamentally, the school should just teach you to read as soon as possible and from there on it should just give you things to read. I fail to see how this won't devolve into parents that have more time to devote to their children's education through encouragement, steering, tutoring, or paying for the same having a better outcome. And since I think having more money is causal for having more time, I…

You replace teachers with tutors. You encourage study group work. You use better educational tools. In Mindstorms, Papert talks about how the computer is fundamentally the best educational tool. This reflects my experience but for some reason computers are barely used in education and if they are, they are used in all the wrong ways.

On some level, I think that if the kids need tutors, the system is broken.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#42

Post by chinese_dan »

terrywilcox wrote: post #23
oldmanjay wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since that isn't even close to what the OP said it's pretty clear you're dedicated to the narrative of the evil rich. Keep plugging! It'll stick soon

I believe you've swapped the narrative. A lot of people work their ass off just to pay the rent and feed their kids. Working your ass off does not imply wealth. That's the problem.

"A lot of people work their ass off just to pay the rent and feed their kids."

We should also be questioning why someone that can barely pay the rent decides to have another kid (or even a kid at all). Financial management should be a bigger part of our education system.

"Working your ass off does not imply wealth. That's the problem."

It has never and should never imply wealth. When I was in college, I worked my ass off and studied for an exam one time. I barely passed. Do you think this is fair? I probably worked harder than many of my classmates.

Obtaining wealth involves: timing, hard work, intelligence, and discipline...with a little bit of luck thrown into the mix. Most wealthy people in the US did not inherit it.

Before claiming that the system is rigged (which seems to be pretty common these days in our presidential campaign), we need to take a hard look at the responsibility of the individual.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#43

Post by peller »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #33
harryh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The educational system is a scapegoat for far bigger and more entrenched problems.

Exactly. I strongly suggest to speak with some actual teachers, instead of blindly relying on ridiculous propaganda. The problem is not the system, the problem is social mobility. Poor kids don't do well in school because their families and their environment don't value education. They perceive (correctly, BTW, from a statistical perspective) that if you're born poor, there isn't much you can do. You're gonna die poo…

> Poor kids don't do well in school because their families and their environment don't value education.

Have you considered the possibility that the educational system doesn't value the needs of the poor?

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#44

Post by bbctol »

dudul wrote: post #2

It sucks, but what's the solution? Because let's face it, the primary purpose of "being rich" is to provide for one's family, at least from my point of view. If I work my ass off it's to make sure I can help my kids do better than I did. What's the point of being "wealthy" if it's not to help your kids have a better life than your own? I don't want to sound insensitive. All these studies about kids born in poverty an…

The arguments you present seem orthogonal to the point. What's the relevance of people wanting to be wealthy in order to give their kids a better life? It's not as if we should improve equality by making sure children have worse lives than their parents.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#46

Post by ethanbond »

dogma1138 wrote: post #30
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that increases social mobility would be good. America is doing quite poorly in terms of social mobility, compared to other top-tier countries.

I wouldn't be on it, being poor in America still means you have more money than everyone in the world, including more than the middle class in most EU nations. Social mobility in Europe is also really not great especially once you adjust for the immigration, you also need to account for the fact that social mobility studies in Europe are based on the income level of parents and grandparents, both WW2/Eastern Block an…

> I wouldn't be on it, being poor in America still means you have more money than everyone in the world, including more than the middle class in most EU nations.

Source?

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#47

Post by tankenmate »

dogma1138 wrote: post #30
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that increases social mobility would be good. America is doing quite poorly in terms of social mobility, compared to other top-tier countries.

I wouldn't be on it, being poor in America still means you have more money than everyone in the world, including more than the middle class in most EU nations. Social mobility in Europe is also really not great especially once you adjust for the immigration, you also need to account for the fact that social mobility studies in Europe are based on the income level of parents and grandparents, both WW2/Eastern Block an…

Actually being poor in America is worse than being poor in most other OECD nations; most first world countries have unemployment benefits that don't have time limits (they may have performance limits, i.e. you need to apply for X amount of jobs per week, etc). A number of them have free health care (and even some 2nd world countries have this). A non trivial number have free university education, or a university education that is paid out of your taxes (after an earning threshold) and the outstanding balance forgiven after 25 year or so. The USA can at times be a brutal place to be poor; even still this can be better than a large number of 2nd world countries, and almost all 3rd world countries.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#48

Post by nostromo »

mac01021 wrote: post #26

This doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me. > Specifically, rich high school dropouts remain in the top about as much as poor college grads stay stuck in the bottom — 14 versus 16 percent, respectively. They're saying social mobility (up or down) is attainable for 85% of each group. And graduating college is not really the same as making all the right choices...

It's also saying that if you're a rich kid and you drop out of high school, you're likely to be relatively poor by age 40.

And the median poor kid that went to college and graduated is likely to be better off than you at 40.

Seems... quite good actually.

Re: Poor kids who do things right don't do better than rich kids who do things wrong

#49

Post by blfr »

But, of course, it's not just a matter of dollars and cents. It's also a matter of letters and words. Affluent parents talk to their kids three more hours a week on average than poor parents, which is critical during a child's formative early years. That's why, as Stanford professor Sean Reardon explains, "rich students are increasingly entering kindergarten much better prepared to succeed in school than middle-class students," and they're staying that way.

It's also a matter of genes. Actually, mostly a matter of genes because this is by far the biggest influence parents have on their kids. Affluent parents pass high IQ and conscientiousness to their children which are critical for the rest of their lives. That's why, as anyone who skimmed the twin studies or maybe on of these new fancy GWAS can explain, rich children increasingly exit the womb better prepared to succeed in life and they stay that way. (That and the fact that we removed most of environmental instults.)

It doesn't end there either. They will also be wealthier, healthier, and live longer. "All good things tend to go together, as do all bad ones."

Post reply on HN