[hobs]

"Study hard, get good grades, follow the formula and ultimately merit wins."

That's really funny, I remember the day I watched a kid's femoral artery get slashed in a fight and watched my teacher use his belt as a tourniquet, thankfully the kid lived because of that.

Most of my schools were taught by burnt out underpaid angry folks who wanted you to stay in line, that's it, any other behavior would be met with derision, verbal abuse, and targeted violence by other students.

Meanwhile rich kids get into good schools because they can afford after school activities and tutors since birth.

[everyone]

Yeah, in work it's all about who you know. What your connections and background are. Everything is like that, including school, but I guess the person who wrote this article didnt realize that.

[SilverElfin]

> Meanwhile rich kids get into good schools because they can afford after school activities and tutors since birth.

This is a myth - most non-legacy admissions kids getting into good colleges aren’t spending on these things in the way that you think. They’re getting there because they’re actually smart and hard working and have a stable environment (like two parents). It doesn’t take much to get a very high test score for example - most of them aren’t even paying for group classes let alone tutors.

[cosmic_cheese]

Based on personal experience I don't believe it has as much to do with smartness or willingess to work hard. A lot of poor kids have that too.

The bigger difference is that successful parents are constantly acting as role models, giving their children cues to follow, and passing on important knowledge that schools don't whether they realize or not. Many poor kids miss out on those things entirely, and as a result end up spinning their wheels later in life due to misplaced efforts and fumbled attempts. They may eventually figure things out on their own, but it'll happen several years down the road, and while they can narrow the gap closing it entirely becomes more difficult the further they ascend (feels a bit like Zeno's Paradox).

[righthand]

> and have a stable environment

For example, having a good supportive community with after school programs or other youth outreach programs.

I was dining and eavesdropping a conversation at a table in a restaurant. It was a mother and 8 year old daughter talking about her future. They were talking about a career path to being a doctor, SAT scores and how she is studying right now for the SAT and other tests and the extra-curricular that would be required (whether the child naturally wanted this path is unknown). The mother remarked on another conversation with her daughter’s friend; that she did not ask the daughter’s friend about the career prospects, because she wasn’t sure if the friend had any. She didn’t want to have an awkward conversation. Notice that the supportive environment doesn’t extend to the daughter’s friend in any manner.

[paulryanrogers]

Damn. That's quite early to be teaching the test. And specializing in niche extra curriculars. Competition must be fierce.

[righthand]

It sounded as if they had the next 10 years planned out with little room for anything else.

I think point of starting much earlier is making the research, learning, testing just aspects of life. Then there’s no time spent during their teen years learning how to do that stuff when their minds are extra unfocused it’s routine. I would have probably preferred that than the way I was brought up (minus the prude attitude).

[bigyabai]

> This is a myth

Citation?

[astrobe_]

I want to see that too; because OP is saying between the lines that "public school kids" are lazy dorks by birth.