[MaximumYComb]

I grew up poor and I achieved some of the highest scores state wide in my country's standardised tests as a child (we get tested at ~8,10,12,14). A lot of my peers at my school were from social housing. My assessment is that their biggest issue wasn't money but their homelife. Parents who didn't value education, or even a basic respect for rules/authority. The kids were wild because their parents were kind of wild themselves. Money wouldn't fix scores for these kids.

If you wish to make a political correct stance, I wouldn't go the money route. I'd say that these kids are victims of intergenerational poverty cycles.

[psyc]

Same. My family was below the US poverty line, but my parents were college educated and most of the extended family placed tremendous emphasis on education, academic performance, and college prep. I always get very annoyed with modern discourse that reduces all successes, even staying out of prison, to family income and nothing else. Most of the people I went to school with were from poor or working class families, and I guess a “normal” proportion went to college, and a “normal” proportion were “smart kids.” Based on my observations, a large factor that I never see discussed is religion. Although I’m an atheist, I think the religiosity of the communities I grew up in was a highly effective mitigator of common social ills.

[MaximumYComb]

I think the benefit of religion is that a religious mother/father is less likely to be off on 3-day meth binge compared to a non-religious one. There's a social network to help support people. The social network also encourages a reduction/removal of typical vices that are going to affect a families children (alcohol, drugs, etc).

[throwawayboise]

I agree, and it's not the job of MIT to fix these kids.