The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: startingsmall on July 11, 2017, 10:23:33 AM
-
I'd never really stopped to question whether our family is in the top 20%, but apparently we are.... and, I would imagine, so are many other MMM families.
This interactive game is a pretty simple-but-eye-opening way to introduce others to social mobility. Obviously, we all want what's best for our kids... but I'll admit that I never really stopped to consider all of the ways that can impact others. Sharing here in case anyone else finds this interesting.
https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/are-you-a-dream-hoarder/
-
I'm not convinced that I should stop being a dream hoarder. Asking me to hobble my children's potential in the name of social equity is a big request. As for these poor children, in relative terms as long as they have a bigger house than their parents than they are winning.
Extended poverty is a concern in that it leads to increased crime and unsightly streets. It may be more cost effective to spend money on poverty reduction than incarcerating vast swaths of poor criminals. Even so, I don't think I will be making the leap this line of thought asks.
As someone who is just below the upper middle class income threshold... I'm not paying $24 for this book but might get it at the library for free.
-
I'm not convinced that I should stop being a dream hoarder. Asking me to hobble my children's potential in the name of social equity is a big request. As for these poor children, in relative terms as long as they have a bigger house than their parents than they are winning.
Extended poverty is a concern in that it leads to increased crime and unsightly streets. It may be more cost effective to spend money on poverty reduction than incarcerating vast swaths of poor criminals. Even so, I don't think I will be making the leap this line of thought asks.
As someone who is just below the upper middle class income threshold... I'm not paying $24 for this book but might get it at the library for free.
My library doesn't have it (and likely won't.... small library that doesn't get much of a variety of books) and I haven't decided whether to spend the $18 on Amazon.
-
I'm 2 out of 3 not a dream hoarder. But I'm not really. I favor mixed unit neighborhoods if appropriately planned and am of the opinion if my Kid can't get into my University by themselves due to a low SAT score then maybe they need to rethink their approach to college. I would totally help them get an internship though.
-
I worked my butt off in life to drag myself out of poverty as a child. I'll be damned if anyone tries to make me feel guilty for helping my children succeed in life. I look after my family(wife and kids) and myself. Anyone else will have to fend for themselves just like I had to. If you don't like it tough kitty. Life isn't fair butter cup!
-
I think that 'test' is more virtue signaling, than consciousness raising.
I also give my child the advantage of a violence free home. Perhaps I should randomly kick them in the face, so they don't have an unfair leg up on children from violent homes? Or perhaps, maybe, possibly we should build a society in which no child experiences domestic violence?
Sheesh.
-
That book seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Help poor kids by not helping your own kids?! Who is going to go for that argument? I'm as bleeding heart liberal as you can get (and I don't even have kids) but I find that ridiculous.
Wouldn't it resonate with far more people to argue - help your own kids and pitch in for a less fortunate kid along the way?
-
People in the lower 80% -- especially the lowest 20% where I grew up -- face a lot of problems like not having parents who understand much about personal finance, but shaming people for helping their children is not the answer. In my life, I didn't even understand that I had my own agency, because I was always taught by people in my family and community that my life's results were dictated entirely by luck and circumstance and that nothing I did would make a difference in building a future for myself. That's where we need to focus as a society. We need to teach the poor that they are not helpless and they can be strong and independent.
This means keeping the programs that can help the poor on their way, but also strongly encouraging the poor to develop marketable skills (such as STEM) in a meaningful way which they can use to acquire wealth. We also need to purposefully counteract the negative influences of advertising and the mainstream media which teach the poor that materialism and consumption are the only ways to live.
We also need to get this healthcare situation under control, because millions of poor people are unable to access mental health services, which is preventing them from taking even the first steps toward success. We need to either shore up the ACA in the USA or replace it with some kind of universal healthcare, because right now we are seemingly purposefully trying to increase poverty in the United States.
-
if my Kid can't get into my University by themselves due to a low SAT score then maybe they need to rethink their approach to college. I would totally help them get an internship though.
I agree. Even if a large donation (yeah, right) could get my kid into a prestigious university, he'd be the kid who wasn't really prepared for the rigor of that school ... a recipe for failure. Why would I set my kid up for that. But, yeah, if I can speak to a friend and help my kid get a foot-in-the-door for an internship, why wouldn't I? The website assumes that if I don't do this, the poor kid automatically gets the spot. We can't know that.
I worked my butt off in life to drag myself out of poverty as a child. I'll be damned if anyone tries to make me feel guilty for helping my children succeed in life. I look after my family(wife and kids) and myself. Anyone else will have to fend for themselves just like I had to. If you don't like it tough kitty. Life isn't fair butter cup!
I could say the same thing. I'll also add this: My kids are better people than I am, partially because they didn't have to claw their way out of poverty and don't bear the scars of a difficult childhood. They are positive assets to society, and I'm not going to feel bad for having provided well for them.
-
I think measures like allowing multi family homes are good, especially since it also coincides with my view that dense neighborhoods with all the necessary amenities and green space within walking distance are the best neighborhoods (and that's difficult to achieve with single family home suburbs). But the effect is wrong because I also think that the quality of school shouldn't depend on the tax revenue of the zip code it's in so that would be something I'd want to change as well. College admissions shouldn't take into account donations or legacy status, only merit, so again, would not take advantage of that. The only caveat is that it still gives higher income kids an advantage if test scores are used so taking into account the effect of privilege on the admissions process to create a more diverse class is acceptable in my mind.
However, personal connections are the best way to get jobs and I would not feel bad about using those to help my kid at all, as long as I thought the recommendation would reflect positively on me, as I'd consider for anyone I'd recommend. I strongly believe in networking and I think that teaching kids how to do that effectively is important, especially for people without built in networks though their families.
I think the framing of this as a zero sum game is not quite accurate (although yes, moving in and out of quintiles means someone else has to as well) because we can also change the rules to level the playing field and thus expand the whole pie so more kids overall get access to quality education and more opportunities without taking away from anyone else.
These also seem like problems that don't exist in the same way here in Canada. Unless you live on a reserve, you are likely to have access to quality schools in any neighborhood, and the university I attended only looked at high school averages, nothing else. We have problems too, but I think as a society we have better economic mobility and it's a direct result of our laws and policies.
-
I agree that people use far too much privilege to give their kids a leg up, and I'm personally in favour of a meritocracy.
In my utopian ideal world, all kids would have an equal start and equal opportunities to progress.
-
This means keeping the programs that can help the poor on their way, but also strongly encouraging the poor to develop marketable skills (such as STEM) in a meaningful way which they can use to acquire wealth. We also need to purposefully counteract the negative influences of advertising and the mainstream media which teach the poor that materialism and consumption are the only ways to live.
I agree with you but wish to discuss this more. If you get blocked access to a university because a legacy takes the place, how does that help the poor acquire a STEM degree? There are finite spots, there's always applicants turned away. Every single Legacy admission is turning away a more deserving applicant, some off them will be poor admissions that studied and worked harder already.
You can tell the poor to develop marketable skills, I also advocate leveling the field so that all people (regardless of class at birth) have an equal shot.
-
Every single Legacy admission is turning away a more deserving applicant, some off them will be poor admissions that studied and worked harder already.
How do you know that the Legacy admission wasn't equally qualified to the poor, deserving applicant? They may BOTH have been highly qualified.
And the issue wasn't getting a spot in a college somewhere ... it was getting into this prestigious school. The poor, deserving applicant is going to be accepted SOMEWHERE, just not this particular school. As a teacher of high school seniors, I see our mediocre students turned down by 4-year schools, but I never see a student with a strong academic record rejected by every school.
-
The game is pretty heavy handed and oversimplified but I get where they are going. I'm interested in reading the book (I'm #47 on reserve at the library).
I have seen this play out over the last couple of years at my kids' public school. The parents who are more able to be invested in time, money, energy, facetime, etc., are able to make changes that benefit their own kids. The idea of thinking about other kids in the classes and their specific needs is secondary - the parents assume that if they make improvements to benefit their own kids it automatically improves things for other kids. Or maybe they don't really care about other kids, I don't know.
I spent this year in the PTA trying to think more globally about what benefits the kids whose parents couldn't, say, make the Friday 9am Principal's meeting (SPOILER: THOSE OF US WITH JOBS). It was not something anyone wanted to think or talk about, I assure you. I was so popular!
But you know, my kids will be fine in their lives - they are middle class white kids without significant disabilities from a stable, loving home. They have everything they will ever need (and most of what they want). So they don't really NEED me to be advocating for them all the time - I can use the time and energy I have to give to the school/community to try and raise up other kids (who don't have their advantages). It doesn't TAKE anything from them. They have enough, and enough is plenty.
-
I definitely have mixed feelings on this, but I suppose its good to have the conversation at least.
-
I think that 'test' is more virtue signaling, than consciousness raising.
Agreed. This is really dumb honestly and way overly simplistic. It also makes a lot of assumptions. I am not a “fixed pie” believer. I don’t think that limiting opportunity from one person frees up opportunity for someone else.
-
This means keeping the programs that can help the poor on their way, but also strongly encouraging the poor to develop marketable skills (such as STEM) in a meaningful way which they can use to acquire wealth. We also need to purposefully counteract the negative influences of advertising and the mainstream media which teach the poor that materialism and consumption are the only ways to live.
I agree with you but wish to discuss this more. If you get blocked access to a university because a legacy takes the place, how does that help the poor acquire a STEM degree? There are finite spots, there's always applicants turned away. Every single Legacy admission is turning away a more deserving applicant, some off them will be poor admissions that studied and worked harder already.
You can tell the poor to develop marketable skills, I also advocate leveling the field so that all people (regardless of class at birth) have an equal shot.
I in part got into my University because I was from a Midwestern State VS. being from NY, NJ or CA. I was going to one of those schools that "build a diverse class." I don't feel I didn't deserve to be there, I did; but I know one of my advantages was being from a state that sent 16 incoming freshman vs. 300.
-
OK, this really riles me up.
1. Assuming that life is a zero-sum game (as this game does) is just stupid. Also, it's the exact kind of "just stupid" that our local school of education teaches, and that some of our teachers have been learning in their "professional training".
So, real story, my 13-year-old's middle school LA (Language Arts, AKA reading and writing) teachers bought into this bs last year and decided to eliminate all leveled classes. Which, maybe is OK if the teachers are excellent, but at least one of them ballistically sucked. Like, the kids had 5 graded writing assignments in the first 13 weeks of school, and parents who asked questions about this got a response of "you're a bunch of racist, elitist bigots." The teacher had the heavily-muscled assistant principal attend his back-to-school evening presentations to present a visual threat to the parents. Kids who themselves asked for more feedback from him were pooh-poohed, and when I contacted him two nights before a 5-week research project was due to ask where I could find the rubric (AKA grading expectations, for those of you who don't do ed-speak) for the paper he (1) told me that it didn't exist yet, that the students were developing it, (because 13-year-olds who can't write are exactly who should be developing the standards and expectations for their first research paper) and (2) then mocked me in front of my kid's class for asking.
Having teachers believe that opportunity is a zero-sum game is horrible, in my experience, because it means they'll deliberately ignore (or insult) the "privileged" (white male) students in order to push them back while trying to bring everyone else up. Guess how well that works in middle school? Leads to greater comeraderie and understanding? Feeling of solidarity among the students? Actual learning? Disadvantaged students wanting to stick up their heads and speak up, after they've watched their classmates be shamed and insulted?
2. The game is a heavy-handed POS. Really, Brookings? Even if I make the "right" choice you threaten me with dire-sounding consequences?
I've open-enrolled my kids twice to get them into schools where most teacher believe that every student should see a year's work of academic growth in a year. (No exaggeration -- I once asked a 7th grade science teacher "so, how would you extend this material for kids who already know a bunch of it?" Response: "I don't have to do that." Result: My kids are not attending that school, you twit.)
I've also spent the last 13+ years advocating for kids who don't have parents able to attend PTO meetings and programatic planning committees. I've volunteered both during-school and before-and-after-school helping kids at all levels with math skills. Sometimes I get groups that include my kids, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I wind up taking the advanced kids off someplace else, which frees the teacher to help the kids who are struggling without the classroom management nightmare of handling a bunch of bored, squirmy (mostly) boys. Sometimes I get the struggling students. Now I also tutor math in our High School.
No, I'm not going to get my kid a legacy spot at my Alma Mater if he can't get in on his own. Yes, I'll introduce him to adults who might be able to mentor him. I will also do that for any other kid I know who could use that help, and I'll recommend students to my college if I think they'd be a good fit.
As SS said, way back, should I start beating my kids so kids from abusive homes aren't disadvantaged? How about we actually work to create a world where no kids are beaten? And where the educational system works for more children? And where there are more opportunities of all kinds for everyone?
-
I definitely have mixed feelings on this, but I suppose its good to have the conversation at least.
That's exactly why I shared it. I am apparently 2/3 'Dream Hoarder.' I definitely don't view myself in that way and consider myself very liberal, but the quiz did prompt me to give it some more thought and poke around the rest of the website.
Obviously the game is oversimplified and exaggerated, but I think it provokes an interesting conversation... both in terms of internal 'dialogue' and discussion with others.
-
Every single Legacy admission is turning away a more deserving applicant, some off them will be poor admissions that studied and worked harder already.
How do you know that the Legacy admission wasn't equally qualified to the poor, deserving applicant? They may BOTH have been highly qualified.
And the issue wasn't getting a spot in a college somewhere ... it was getting into this prestigious school. The poor, deserving applicant is going to be accepted SOMEWHERE, just not this particular school. As a teacher of high school seniors, I see our mediocre students turned down by 4-year schools, but I never see a student with a strong academic record rejected by every school.
Because it wouldn't be a legacy admission...it would be a regular admission. In the case of two highly qualified applicants, the most qualified gets in.
Try being on the losing end of admissions to a classmate with lower grades.
-
I agree that people use far too much privilege to give their kids a leg up, and I'm personally in favour of a meritocracy.
In my utopian ideal world, all kids would have an equal start and equal opportunities to progress.
This reminds me of something an ex-BF said to me. He was a communist when he was younger. "When you're poor, everyone's a communist".
I agree with you, it would be nice to have a level playing field. After all, children don't ask to be born into poor, disadvantaged homes. But basic biology and the will to make your own genes succeed makes this dream almost impossible to realize in real life. Once people have kids, they become completely selfish -- no judgement intended. It's a biological response.
-
That gameplay is severely lacking. I want to jump over something. I want to rack up gold points.
Sent from my BLU LIFE ONE using Tapatalk
-
...I also advocate leveling the field so that all people (regardless of class at birth) have an equal shot.
This is a funny statement. It could only have one of two meanings.
1. Those with advantageous need to be pushed down to the lowest denominator. We should punish parents who read to their kids or provide their children with wisdom. We should make it illegal for parent to travel with their kids, provide their kids with classes like piano, provide their children with books, feed and cloth their children well, and pay for tutors.
Or
2. Those with disadvantages need to be pushed up. The problem with this is it is not something the government can do, but rather it can only be done by the parents. And thus, the best we can do as a society is provide all individuals with as much freedom as possible so they can purse what is in their own and their child's best interests.
3. remove programs that limit access based on birth rights, Just leave the whole space empty.
I'm all for equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Everyone gets the same shot and is judged by their own merits, not their parents, not their grandparents. It doesn't mean anyone gets "pushed" down or dragged up. It means a fair evaluation of the individual without regard to parents, class, or status. Basically, you earn your spot.
In some cases upper class kids are the ones being given advantages at the age of 18 (low SAT score Legacy). What makes you think only poor people are getting advantages under the current system? Do away with it and let people have the freedom to succeed, without limits.
-
I'm not convinced that I should stop being a dream hoarder. Asking me to hobble my children's potential in the name of social equity is a big request. As for these poor children, in relative terms as long as they have a bigger house than their parents than they are winning.
Extended poverty is a concern in that it leads to increased crime and unsightly streets. It may be more cost effective to spend money on poverty reduction than incarcerating vast swaths of poor criminals. Even so, I don't think I will be making the leap this line of thought asks.
As someone who is just below the upper middle class income threshold... I'm not paying $24 for this book but might get it at the library for free.
My library doesn't have it (and likely won't.... small library that doesn't get much of a variety of books) and I haven't decided whether to spend the $18 on Amazon.
You can always ask them to order it. Depending on funding, they might say no, but you can always ask.
-
if my Kid can't get into my University by themselves due to a low SAT score then maybe they need to rethink their approach to college. I would totally help them get an internship though.
I agree. Even if a large donation (yeah, right) could get my kid into a prestigious university, he'd be the kid who wasn't really prepared for the rigor of that school ... a recipe for failure. Why would I set my kid up for that. But, yeah, if I can speak to a friend and help my kid get a foot-in-the-door for an internship, why wouldn't I? The website assumes that if I don't do this, the poor kid automatically gets the spot. We can't know that.
While I agree this is what the game says, I think there is some obvious hyperbole here. The point, in my opinion, is to think about what a big difference these little sorts of things can make.
A personal example: I technically came from an upper-middle-class family. When my parents were married, they were well-off. When my parents divorced, my dad stayed well-off.... and because he gave my mom a pretty good bit of child support, my brother and I were raised in a nice house, had nice clothes, etc. So, by many measures you could argue that I'm pretty privileged.
On the other hand, neither of my parents attended college. My dad managed an auto dealership, so he wasn't really in a position to provide me with professional connections in any field that was of interest to me. My mom remained chronically unemployed after their divorce and dated a series of drug addicts, so not a lot of connections there either. It's only recently that I began to realize some of the more subtle effects that my upbringing may have had on my education and early adulthood..... I always viewed myself as very advantaged due to my dad's wealth (and I would still argue that I was), but when I went off to college it never occurred to me do things like join clubs and play sports and do internships and things like that, because my parents always assumed that college attendance was a great thing in and of itself that would open all doors. The thought of spending the money to go to a Ivy League college was viewed as absurd, things like studying abroad/etc. were a waste of money, and I worked retail jobs every summer to pay for gas/car insurance/etc instead of looking for internships. Just a few examples. Those things that didn't get in the way of my success and my life definitely turned out fine, but I sometimes wonder how my experience would have differed if my parents background had been different.
-
I'm not convinced that I should stop being a dream hoarder. Asking me to hobble my children's potential in the name of social equity is a big request. As for these poor children, in relative terms as long as they have a bigger house than their parents than they are winning.
Extended poverty is a concern in that it leads to increased crime and unsightly streets. It may be more cost effective to spend money on poverty reduction than incarcerating vast swaths of poor criminals. Even so, I don't think I will be making the leap this line of thought asks.
As someone who is just below the upper middle class income threshold... I'm not paying $24 for this book but might get it at the library for free.
My library doesn't have it (and likely won't.... small library that doesn't get much of a variety of books) and I haven't decided whether to spend the $18 on Amazon.
You can always ask them to order it. Depending on funding, they might say no, but you can always ask.
Yeah. We recently moved and I don't yet have a library card, but it may be worth a try. I've tried searching for a number of nonfiction titles, though, with no luck... I think our library traffics primarily in Stephen King and John Grisham type stuff. (Small town in the south with a relatively uneducated population.)
-
Yeah. We recently moved and I don't yet have a library card, but it may be worth a try. I've tried searching for a number of nonfiction titles, though, with no luck... I think our library traffics primarily in Stephen King and John Grisham type stuff. (Small town in the south with a relatively uneducated population.)
You never know, you might have a librarian who is just looking for some direction to build the non-fiction collection. You may even be able to help with grant writing to get funds for such things.
if not, ask about the inter library loan program.
-
Yeah. We recently moved and I don't yet have a library card, but it may be worth a try. I've tried searching for a number of nonfiction titles, though, with no luck... I think our library traffics primarily in Stephen King and John Grisham type stuff. (Small town in the south with a relatively uneducated population.)
You never know, you might have a librarian who is just looking for some direction to build the non-fiction collection. You may even be able to help with grant writing to get funds for such things.
if not, ask about the inter library loan program.
So true. Thanks for the kick in the butt - I've been spending too much on books lately and need to start using the library!
-
One thing he does bring up which is a good point is separating the "middle class" into "upper middle class."
I even see that here in the "do you feel wealthy?" types of threads where nearly no one thinks they are wealthy and have defined that as "not having to work."
Though, watching a video of his (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2XFh_tD2RA) he says that of people born in the bottom 20% of wealth, 1/10 make it to the top 20% and only 1/3 stay in the bottom 20%. That seems... impressively good, actually, on the whole and considerably better than I would have thought.
The most interesting part he addresses is how lower your chances are based on different circumstances (particularly familial). A child does not really get a choice if raised by a single parent, but that has a significant effect on statistical social mobility.
-
Stupidest thing I've ever seen. I suppose if I enrolled my kid in SAT prep courses and took him on culturally enriching vacations I'm a dream hoarder. Hell, I should deprive him of nutrients and sleep so the 80% can kick his ass in life.
I grew up FAR from the "First Fifth" but now I'm easily in that category. I took chances and worked hard and I'll provide every advantage for my kid despite what Brookings thinks.
-
I would love more multi families in my town. so I can try and buy them.
-
I would love more multi families in my town. so I can try and buy them.
That was actually my reaction too when I saw that ;-)
-
Huh. This seemed a little silly.
The quiz treats inequality as something you can change by not helping your kid get an internship or something like that -- when instead we need things like universal health care and a more even-handed policy for funding education.
Also... the quiz seems to treat being in "the 80%" as equivalent to "poor." So let's say I'm in the top 20% and I deny opportunities to my kid. Then maybe someone from the top 30% gets those opportunities instead. This counts as major social progress?
-
Huh. This seemed a little silly.
The quiz treats inequality as something you can change by not helping your kid get an internship or something like that -- when instead we need things like universal health care and a more even-handed policy for funding education.
Also... the quiz seems to treat being in "the 80%" as equivalent to "poor." So let's say I'm in the top 20% and I deny opportunities to my kid. Then maybe someone from the top 30% gets those opportunities instead. This counts as major social progress?
Interesting how you think we should have universal health care but think poor people should pay more for education...
Our current education system (at least universities) is not at all even-handed, it shifts the cost disproportionately to wealthy students through the FAFSA and need based scholarships.
I was referring to how public schools are funded by property taxes. Why should a kid get a sub-par education just because the buildings in his or her neighborhood generate less tax revenue? There's got to be a better way.
College costs way more than it needs to cost, as a general rule.
-
Stupidest thing I've ever seen. I suppose if I enrolled my kid in SAT prep courses and took him on culturally enriching vacations I'm a dream hoarder. Hell, I should deprive him of nutrients and sleep so the 80% can kick his ass in life.
I grew up FAR from the "First Fifth" but now I'm easily in that category. I took chances and worked hard and I'll provide every advantage for my kid despite what Brookings thinks.
You might be misunderstanding. Please continue with all those activities. The dream hoarder would skip those, make a large university donation instead and get their kid in. The difference being that in your kid the child has the innate skills whereas the second case, the kid uses their position (class) to get ahead.
Skills are good. Blatant buying because your kid lacks skills, much harder to defend.
-
Huh. This seemed a little silly.
The quiz treats inequality as something you can change by not helping your kid get an internship or something like that -- when instead we need things like universal health care and a more even-handed policy for funding education.
Also... the quiz seems to treat being in "the 80%" as equivalent to "poor." So let's say I'm in the top 20% and I deny opportunities to my kid. Then maybe someone from the top 30% gets those opportunities instead. This counts as major social progress?
Interesting how you think we should have universal health care but think poor people should pay more for education...
Our current education system (at least universities) is not at all even-handed, it shifts the cost disproportionately to wealthy students through the FAFSA and need based scholarships.
I was referring to how public schools are funded by property taxes. Why should a kid get a sub-par education just because the buildings in his or her neighborhood generate less tax revenue? There's got to be a better way.
College costs way more than it needs to cost, as a general rule.
There is a better way. Canada has much better class mobility than the US, in part because we don't have that kind of stupid funding model. And our universities are way cheaper for similar quality education. The american way makes no sense to me.
-
Is this crap on the Brookings Institute website? I knew it was a liberal organization (like me), but I thought it was respectable/common sense.
-
Is this crap on the Brookings Institute website? I knew it was a liberal organization (like me), but I thought it was respectable/common sense.
It's pretty standard hyperbole imo.
If you look into what they are saying, the details are reasonable observations. It's the way they are presented that make them look so foolish (but I guess get people talking about them? so... maybe bad publicity is better than no publicity?).
-
Interesting how you think we should have universal health care but think poor people should pay more for education...
I was a poor kid, and I am tremendously grateful that I live in America, where every kid has the opportunity for a no-direct-cost basic education. I knew in high school that this was the very best thing for me.
However, as a teacher today, I think families should have to pay for a couple things in the public school system -- and these are things you wouldn't see unless you're "in the system":
- I don't think we, the public, should pay for kids to repeat classes. When I was a new teacher I taught a 9th grade basic core class, and we had a small percentage of kids who just didn't do anything -- so they ended up repeating the class. The worst I saw was a kid who repeated the class five times. He didn't attend, behaved badly and was suspended frequently, and just did no work. He flip-flopped among three teachers, and his work ethic didn't vary. He told us things like "You're not allowed to fail me because I've already failed this class once" ... "This is my third time in this class, I pass no matter what" ... "Everyone automatically passes summer school". Yeah, uh, no. Admittedly, few kids do this, but I don't think students of this caliber should be allowed to repeatedly take seats in the same class year after year. Mr. 9th-grade Remedial Math Five Times was extreme, but I've known too many kids who sit through the same class three times -- and we're not talking about AP Physics. I think the public should pay for kids' basic education, but if they throw away Chance #1, the student /family should bear the cost of repeating the class.
- Textbooks are expensive (high school books are typically $75-125/copy), and kids who "hoard them" should have to pay. I teach seniors, and this is a common situation: For whatever reason, the student doesn't turn in any of his freshman books, forgets his sophomore Geometry book and Spanish book, doesn't turn in his Chemistry book and English book as a junior. So the kid has literally a thousand dollars worth of school-owned textbooks shoved under his bed, and he's just being lazy and isn't digging them out. We keep records of what he hasn't turned in, and we ask for the books every year -- but we can't push the issue 'til he's a senior. When he's a second semester senior, he finally realizes, he is not going to be able to attend graduation unless he pays the $1000 or so he owes in missing books. So his mom finally gets upset, makes him crawl under the bed or dig through the closet ... he brings the books into school (or maybe mom does), and his record is wiped clean. However, we have not had use of those books for several years! In the meantime, we've been forced to spend our limited resources to replace books ... all because he just didn't care until push came to shove. Students who don't turn books in on time should have to pay for them.
Related subject: Two of my teacher-friends work at a nearby college's bookstore "seasonally" (meaning they work the first /last couple weeks of the college semester helping with textbooks. They say that only about 1/3 of the students who rent books manage to return them on time ... so their (or their parents') credit card is automatically charged full price for the books.
Anyway, I strongly believe in providing a no-direct-cost education to every child, but I also think that people should bear financial responsibility for their own irresponsibility.
-
Students who don't turn books in on time should have to pay for them.
This seems easy to resolve, any student who does not return or pay for books cannot receive new textbooks the next year.
-
Is this crap on the Brookings Institute website? I knew it was a liberal organization (like me), but I thought it was respectable/common sense.
It's pretty standard hyperbole imo.
If you look into what they are saying, the details are reasonable observations. It's the way they are presented that make them look so foolish (but I guess get people talking about them? so... maybe bad publicity is better than no publicity?).
Exactly. I don't think anyone (including me, who initially started this post) expects the 'game' to be taken literally. It's clearly hyperbole... and my initial response was to immediately become defensive and say "I am NOT a dream hoarder, WTF?!" But, in that moment after anger, there was a quieter "....am I?" The response that comes after the anger and the defensiveness is where (in my mind) curiosity and learning can happen. But, at the same time, I can see how some folks might not ever get there.
-
if my Kid can't get into my University by themselves due to a low SAT score then maybe they need to rethink their approach to college. I would totally help them get an internship though.
I agree. Even if a large donation (yeah, right) could get my kid into a prestigious university, he'd be the kid who wasn't really prepared for the rigor of that school ... a recipe for failure. Why would I set my kid up for that. But, yeah, if I can speak to a friend and help my kid get a foot-in-the-door for an internship, why wouldn't I? The website assumes that if I don't do this, the poor kid automatically gets the spot. We can't know that.
This is where I drew the line as well. And, if they had put the donation and the legacy piece in different questions, I would have said yes to acknowledging the legacy but no to the donation. I also said yes to helping with the internship.
However, our area is grappling right now with the effects of gentrification and is rapidly changing from a working class to upper middle class. My city representative has made affordable housing his primary issue. I support him whole heartedly.
I feel like the most constructive way to use this info is not as shaming for trying to give your kids the best start in life, it's to acknowledge the role these choices play in perpetuating inequality of opportunity. And, as many here have suggested, the solution is not to hamstring your own offspring, it's to push for policies that elevate the less privileged. ALL kids should have access to safe homes and neighborhoods, good nutrition, healthcare, and good education. Full stop.
-
Played the game for kicks. Hilarious! All I could think of was the people in Atlas Shrugged claiming it was selfish to make a profit.
-
Played the game for kicks. Hilarious! All I could think of was the people in Atlas Shrugged claiming it was selfish to make a profit.
Haha, I also was thinking about Ayn Rand while playing the game.
-
I would love more multi families in my town. so I can try and buy them.
That was actually my reaction too when I saw that ;-)
I couldn't get past this question. I have two rental properties that are near good transport, decent schools, but one lacks what buyers want, trendy cafes, restaurants, etc (because that's what people want in Melbourne), and I think that well built apartment buildings would increase the demand for these services and if supply of these increases, it will increase the value of the whole suburb. But the local government has a habit of approving crappily built apartments. So would I vote to increase high density living in that suburb, hmm, probably not with the current local council. The other rental area seems to approve decent quality high quality buildings, so even though it won't hinder or help me, I would be happy for them to have more built.
Such black and white questions with so many variables to consider...
No wonder I failed the unfailable optimism test at a previous job due to wanting know the variables!
But yes, good area, good services, I would consider buying more rentals...
-
Students who don't turn books in on time should have to pay for them.
This seems easy to resolve, any student who does not return or pay for books cannot receive new textbooks the next year.
Sounds like common sense, but it is not allowed. The kid is entitled to a free public education, which includes textbooks. If he never returns the books at all, we still have to give him his diploma -- all we're allowed to do is forbid him from attending the graduation ceremony.
Oh, and if the kid doesn't make it to graduation, we never get the books back at all. It's poor management of the public coffers, but the legislators in the state capital have tied our hands.
And, in all honesty, we're talking about a small-but-persistent group of students. This is not widespread behavior.
-
The game is simplistic and overstated, but the point is a good. Many people who say they want equality of opportunity, actually live their lives in ways that perpetuate the inequality. I'll give another example that is in the dream hoarder book, but not this quiz. School fundraising. Schools in upper middle class neighborhoods tend to have well funded PTOs that raise a lot of money for their school. The PTO in the lower income neighborhood across town can't raise the same amount of money because the parent population doesn't have the same resources to donate or find business partners, etc.
The parents mean well, just looking out to ensure their kid's school has the resources to provide a high quality education. But the result is an unequal level of resources to schools across income groups.
What is the solution? I see at least two. One, instead of a PTO spending its time raising money for one school, how about lobby the district/state for more funding for all schools? Two, schools in higher and lower income areas combine fundraising efforts and then split the proceeds. Everyone wins if you widen the definition of "our kids" beyond those who live in your house or your friends house.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
vivian, this is a huge problem in [American public] schools. I actually saw this in action - I assisted with a PTO auction for a very upper class area public school, and it raised $150K. Auction items were things like a weekend at a NY apartment and a year's worth of wine. They used that money (in a school where the class size is already low) to pay for a Mandarin teacher and a music teacher. So now those kids (already significantly advantaged) are even more advantaged.
I also assisted in my own kids' school PTO auction. We all busted our asses to make $10k. The parents just don't have the kind of money here to donate. So we pay for each class to have one field trip a year. So these kids (many of them already disadvantaged) are only raised slightly.
It's insane. I agree to that the money should be more evenly distributed but of course the parents would freak.out.
-
Students who don't turn books in on time should have to pay for them.
This seems easy to resolve, any student who does not return or pay for books cannot receive new textbooks the next year.
Sounds like common sense, but it is not allowed. The kid is entitled to a free public education, which includes textbooks. If he never returns the books at all, we still have to give him his diploma -- all we're allowed to do is forbid him from attending the graduation ceremony.
Oh, and if the kid doesn't make it to graduation, we never get the books back at all. It's poor management of the public coffers, but the legislators in the state capital have tied our hands.
And, in all honesty, we're talking about a small-but-persistent group of students. This is not widespread behavior.
Why don't you knock on the kid's front door at dinner time. No kid wants a teacher to show up at his home. Do it enough times and it will shame them into following the rules. I know you shouldn't have to. But sometimes you have to do things that aren't really a part of your job to make a lasting influence.
-
I grew up in a very poor home - by first world standards. What made the difference? I had a mother and father that loved me and put my needs above their own needs. I felt secure and loved. I work with disadvantaged children. It really sucks that some kids have parents that just don't care enough. Very few people would be motivated to deny their own children so another child can get ahead. We need to do things to level the playing field - such as redesign funding to "public" schools. I put public in quotes because the schools in the best neighborhoods are not accessible to the poor. It is really wrong that those who need it the most get the least. I remember having a neighbor who was a grandmother who was claiming her grandchildren lived with her so that they could go to the local school. The officials from the school went door to door with photos of the children to ask neighbors if the children lived there.
-
Students who don't turn books in on time should have to pay for them.
This seems easy to resolve, any student who does not return or pay for books cannot receive new textbooks the next year.
Sounds like common sense, but it is not allowed. The kid is entitled to a free public education, which includes textbooks. If he never returns the books at all, we still have to give him his diploma -- all we're allowed to do is forbid him from attending the graduation ceremony.
Oh, and if the kid doesn't make it to graduation, we never get the books back at all. It's poor management of the public coffers, but the legislators in the state capital have tied our hands.
And, in all honesty, we're talking about a small-but-persistent group of students. This is not widespread behavior.
Why don't you knock on the kid's front door at dinner time. No kid wants a teacher to show up at his home. Do it enough times and it will shame them into following the rules. I know you shouldn't have to. But sometimes you have to do things that aren't really a part of your job to make a lasting influence.
That doesn't sound even remotely possible:
- You're assuming that we have correct addresses /phone numbers for all our students -- and we do have them for our middle class kids, but people in the class we're discussing move frequently, and they don't always want the school to have up-to-date information. Yes, you'd think parents would want the school to have the ability to find them, but -- no, not always. Similarly, some of these kids won't have a picture made for the yearbook because they don't want the police to have easy access to their photograph. I know, I know, I don't think this way either -- but experience tells me that a small segment of our society does.
- You're assuming that the parents would be ashamed or motivated. In my experience, the kids who do this keep-the-book-thing are the ones who think the world owes them something. Yeah, I would be mortified to find that my kid had kept a book for three years; this group doesn't think that way.
- It wouldn't be safe.
No, I see more effective ways to get those books back:
- Withhold the end-of-the-year report card. Parents do want to see that their kid has passed a grade; instead of mailing the report card, mail a notice that the report card is being held at school and the parent can pick it up by bringing in the books. Of course, now that parents can see their kids' grades online 24/7, this isn't what it was a few years ago.
- If freshman books aren't turned in (or if they owe a lab fee or whatever), don't allow them to begin sophomore classes. Let them sit in the office until they've "settled accounts" for freshman year.
- Don't sell them parking passes, dance tickets, all-sports passes if they owe any books or money to the school.
-
Students who don't turn books in on time should have to pay for them.
This seems easy to resolve, any student who does not return or pay for books cannot receive new textbooks the next year.
Sounds like common sense, but it is not allowed. The kid is entitled to a free public education, which includes textbooks. If he never returns the books at all, we still have to give him his diploma -- all we're allowed to do is forbid him from attending the graduation ceremony.
Oh, and if the kid doesn't make it to graduation, we never get the books back at all. It's poor management of the public coffers, but the legislators in the state capital have tied our hands.
And, in all honesty, we're talking about a small-but-persistent group of students. This is not widespread behavior.
Why don't you knock on the kid's front door at dinner time. No kid wants a teacher to show up at his home. Do it enough times and it will shame them into following the rules. I know you shouldn't have to. But sometimes you have to do things that aren't really a part of your job to make a lasting influence.
That doesn't sound even remotely possible:
- You're assuming that we have correct addresses /phone numbers for all our students -- and we do have them for our middle class kids, but people in the class we're discussing move frequently, and they don't always want the school to have up-to-date information. Yes, you'd think parents would want the school to have the ability to find them, but -- no, not always. Similarly, some of these kids won't have a picture made for the yearbook because they don't want the police to have easy access to their photograph. I know, I know, I don't think this way either -- but experience tells me that a small segment of our society does.
- You're assuming that the parents would be ashamed or motivated. In my experience, the kids who do this keep-the-book-thing are the ones who think the world owes them something. Yeah, I would be mortified to find that my kid had kept a book for three years; this group doesn't think that way.
- It wouldn't be safe.
No, I see more effective ways to get those books back:
- Withhold the end-of-the-year report card. Parents do want to see that their kid has passed a grade; instead of mailing the report card, mail a notice that the report card is being held at school and the parent can pick it up by bringing in the books. Of course, now that parents can see their kids' grades online 24/7, this isn't what it was a few years ago.
- If freshman books aren't turned in (or if they owe a lab fee or whatever), don't allow them to begin sophomore classes. Let them sit in the office until they've "settled accounts" for freshman year.
- Don't sell them parking passes, dance tickets, all-sports passes if they owe any books or money to the school.
Still doesn't seem like good incentive for the kid who is already a menace to bring a book back. How about we offer them money? They get their "deposit" back by returning the books.
-
The game is simplistic and overstated, but the point is a good. Many people who say they want equality of opportunity, actually live their lives in ways that perpetuate the inequality.
The problem is that individual choices doesn't have the same effect as changing the rules for everyone. Providing broad access to education to make sure as many kids as possible have a chance to succeed (if they have the native intelligence and drive to do so) is a public good. We're all better off if we having the smartest most motivated scientists and engineers and statisticians possible running our country, and you get that by drawing from the widest pool of talent possible. However, the problem with public goods is that you cannot get public goods through individual choice.
The cliche example of a public good is a road. Everyone benefits if everyone pays a small amount of extra tax to build the road. But if the government doesn't impose a tax, if an individual person decides there needs to be a road, they can spend everything they own, they probably won't even build a complete road, and even if they did, they'd get only a small benefit from it relative to the cost of building a road, while everyone else, who didn't sacrifice to pay for the road, gets the same benefit.
If I have the capacity to pay for mandarin classes and a college essay writing consultant and an SAT tutor for my kid, and I chose not to, my kid's slot doesn't go to a more intelligent, more driven poor kid. In all probability it goes to a kid whose parents could only pay for french classes, helped them with their college essay a lot themselves, and sent them to SAT prep classes instead of hiring a private tutor. Even if that's not the case and one extra poor, motivated, brilliant student gets in to college because I'd decided to hold back my own kid, the benefit of only one extra smarter more motivated doctor (or city planner, or architect, or heck poet) in our society for me personally probably doesn't outweigh what I've and my kid have had to sacrifice to make it happen.
TL;DR The same action taken collectively as a society or individual don't produce the same outcomes (even putting aside the issues of scale). So it makes sense that lots of people support societal change to make it more likely the brightest most motivated kids have the best chance to get ahead in life, but don't specifically disadvantage their own kids.
TL;DR #2 How many people who agree we need to do something about fixing the crumbing infrastructure in this country are paying to have a bridge repaired out of their own pocket? If they aren't, can we really argue that makes them hypocrites?
-
I thought the inclusion of the question about a donation to the alma mater reflects some delusion. The people who can make donations that actually influence admissions decisions aren't "the top 20%," they're not even a meaningful portion of the top 1%. I have noticed other odd attempts to blame the moderately successful segment of the population for oppressing the poor.
-
I think the "dream" for your kids is a similar ethos to antimustachian consumerism.
Why do the "rich" want their non academic kid to struggle through university, do an internship they didn't really deserve or want, then spend a life of drudgery being a lawyer just for the money for example.
I have a 3 year old and my wife is having our second next week. We are both 39. At this point, I want to teach our kids to live a mustachian existance, and live below their means.
To be rich you either have to earn a lot or want a little. Obviously, if they end up doing both that is the optimum but I think true happiness is more likely with the "want a little" approach.
Check back with me in 5, 10 and 15 years as I'm sure there will be a lot of external pressures during that time which might subliminally affect me.
I do worry I am being selfish as my parents put me into private school as a kid and I don't think I would have got into medical school otherwise. I was always pretty lazy as a kid.
-
Can someone please explain this concept of 'dream hoarding' in plain english for me?
-
vivian, this is a huge problem in [American public] schools. I actually saw this in action - I assisted with a PTO auction for a very upper class area public school, and it raised $150K. Auction items were things like a weekend at a NY apartment and a year's worth of wine. They used that money (in a school where the class size is already low) to pay for a Mandarin teacher and a music teacher. So now those kids (already significantly advantaged) are even more advantaged.
I also assisted in my own kids' school PTO auction. We all busted our asses to make $10k. The parents just don't have the kind of money here to donate. So we pay for each class to have one field trip a year. So these kids (many of them already disadvantaged) are only raised slightly.
It's insane. I agree to that the money should be more evenly distributed but of course the parents would freak.out.
Oh yes. In my district, we have such a wide variety of schools from poverty to wealthy.
The top school in my district raises $600,000 a year. $125,000 in only one month. You can imagine that these kids, who already have almost everything, get to have even more things - more teachers, more field trips, etc.
The bottom schools sell popcorn and have rummage sales, and *maybe* make $600-6000 a year. They don't even have a PTA or PTO, only a handful of parents and teachers doing their best. But at least these schools get a LOT more state funding, due to the % of children who are poor.
The middling schools, like the one we chose to attend (there are 2 of them in our district) are the best and worst of both worlds. We have a mix of children. We don't have NEAR the capacity to raise money - we raised $60,000 last year, and it was mainly the effort of about 5 people (one of whom was me, and I wasn't even on the board this year). About 1/4 of that money was a direct result of efforts from me from the 2 fundraisers I almost single-handedly organized, and the big fat check I wrote.
As far as combining funds - the #1 school dismantled their PTA decades ago for a PTO, precisely for that reason. They did not want the district to be able to "take their money".
We are so fortunate this year, that our school has been adopted by a foundation. Some of the field trips (sleepover) that we could never afford are being partially funded. Note I said partially. Still, to send the entire 6th grade will cost about $125 per student. That's $6000. We do not have that in our budget, so I really am not sure how it is going to work.
-
Why do the "rich" want their non academic kid to struggle through university, do an internship they didn't really deserve or want, then spend a life of drudgery being a lawyer just for the money for example.
I don't think that's what really happens to rich, non-academic kids. (I'm thinking specifically of a kid in my class last semester ... definitely looked rich, dressed nicely, drove a Mustang, went on a cruise for spring break and to Disney for graduation -- was allowed to take his girlfriend on both trips ... dumb as dirt, big-time cheater, laid out of school frequently, low motivation for all things academic.) I've known his ilk in the past, and they don't tend to make it through college. I see them a year later selling hot dogs at the mall.
In all honesty, I don't see a whole lot of these kids. Most "rich kids" are motivated to work and tend to be at least average in terms of academics. They seem to grasp that if they want to live a comfortable lifestyle, they must prepare themselves for the world of work.