quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
The wealthy have safer cars, safer neighborhoods, better health care, and better food.

Why would education be different?

As our society is constructed (and I’m not suggesting it should be constructed differently), you are absolutely right.

The difference is the way the power that comes with that money is being used. Parents are interfering in schools on a micro level (arguing for their own child) in ways that didn’t happen when we were younger. There was, in my personal experience, greater respect for school authority.

Maybe.

The game has always been rigged. Always.

Now that women and minorities are competing for the riches that once went exclusively to white men, the elites have to be a bit bolder in cashing in on their privilege. Hence the need for elite pre-schools and donating big bucks to a school (or bribing your way in). Back in the day, they could be more quiet and subtle about it, secure in the knowledge that their little son would land somewhere good no matter his talents or lack thereof.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
The wealthy have safer cars, safer neighborhoods, better health care, and better food.

Why would education be different?

As our society is constructed (and I’m not suggesting it should be constructed differently), you are absolutely right.

The difference is the way the power that comes with that money is being used. Parents are interfering in schools on a micro level (arguing for their own child) in ways that didn’t happen when we were younger. There was, in my personal experience, greater respect for school authority.

Maybe.

The game has always been rigged. Always.

Now that women and minorities are competing for the riches that once went exclusively to white men, the elites have to be a bit bolder in cashing in on their privilege. Hence the need for elite pre-schools and donating big bucks to a school (or bribing your way in). Back in the day, they could be more quiet and subtle about it, secure in the knowledge that their little son would land somewhere good no matter his talents or lack thereof.

I beg to differ that the system is still rigged. No doubt being a legacy applicant helps with some prep school and college applications, but this are much fewer than they used to be. My experience with private prep schools is that most make great efforts to attract and educate a diverse student body. The school where I taught has run a free summer program for inner city Boston kids to prepare them for applying to prep schools, where, depending on family finances, they will receive whatever scholarship money they need. The school also has a very diverse faculty and administration, and its curriculum includes history and literature classes that focus on gender, racial, Native American and LGBTQ issues.

I see the same at the college level. My daughter went to an exclusive college - 15% admit rate - where 44% of the student body is not white.

Whatever the sins of the past, I don’t see the system as hugely rigged anymore.

Jf

My brothers and I attended (then unisex) high school boarding schools.

I too (per Jack's comment) could go on quite a lot about our experiences and my thoughts about them, then and now (with the emphasis on recognizing how different things are now compared to then. And still more, on how they were when founded).

As much as I have negative thoughts about them, I must acknowledge some of their good aspects - especially, that of all girls' schools, and especially in the past. They provided great advantages for students by eliminating the many negative effects of girls being subjected to the coed environment. Until fairly recently, that meant their being treated as second-class student by the teachers. It also led to the social impact of girls' learning in an atmosphere in which popularity, looks and appeal to boys reigned supreme - far over academic achievement.

Then too, their uniforms (not cheap) DID make a big difference in avoiding much of the competition between the girls themselves for the most stylish, most expensive designer clothing.

I notice examining the specs of their present demographics especially that the topmost elite boys' schools (now largely coed), consist of ~ 50% "students of color" and at least 1/3 scholarship students. Admission is highly competitive too (for example, Philips Andover, for example - frequently named annually as the most elite boarding school in the country along with its "brother" school, Phillips Exeter). Although about 1/2 the boys still choose to wear ties (the girls wear almost whatever they choose, provided they cover enough flesh) the change in a generation is immense In my brothers' days, they all wore ties and suits, with many rules of conduct about how they addressed teachers.

Very much like the dress and rules of the students in "Dead Poets's Society" (which by chance I just watched). The boys and girls schools differed greatly from one another way back then, especially in academic quality (the boys' schools far surpassing the girls').

AFAIK the quality of instruction and that of college counseling, have more to do with admissions rates (and where) than "pull" or the "feeder effect" - i.e., certain schools having more of an entree to elite colleges than other applicants.

The small class sizes - average 12, often less (for boys and girls) - is undoubtedly a great plus for learning.

Too many observations between then and now, girls and boys schools, to begin to comment in-depth.