I'm not familiar with Sean Haufler's "advantages of birth". If you are familiar with him and his family, and feel it would be appropriate to this discussion, then have at it I guess.
He got into Yale and you're wondering what advantages he has?
Let's set aside for a second the high-end schools' tendency towards legacy admissions, which clearly isn't going to be biased towards the children of the upper class who are certainly not predominantly white and loaded (that smell is not the dog, folks, it's sarcasm). Have you seen the demographics of Yale[1]? Even just racial demographics put WTFs to this[2]. 7% of Yale students are black--16% of Americans born between 1992 and 1996 are black (and overwhelmingly poor). 9% of Yale students are Hispanic. 14% of Americans born between 1992 and 1996 are Hispanic (and are comparatively only often poor). Does that seem like it makes sense to you if certain populations weren't getting advantages based on external factors?
"They pick the best" often comes up as a possibility to answer that. Because they sort of do, social signaling aside (and Haufler is white and male so he's a few rungs up that ladder too). But isn't it funny how "the best" generally also correlates to "white or Asian and rich"? SAT scores against income[3] are pretty indicative; SAT against racial demographics[also 3] likewise. This is not hard: non-Asian minorities are overwhelmingly more likely to be really-goddam-poor than whites and Asians and are much more likely to score like shit on the signaling tests that are your ticket to the upper-crust-signaling environment of a Yale. (And, as mentioned, even poor whites are more likely to have the social signals that are attractive to groups that select for "their type of people"--like, you know, most societal gatekeepers.) The conflation of economic and social advantages what makes these people privileged.
Crack babies don't get into Yale[4]. Children of illegal immigrants don't get into Yale. People who grow up in extreme poverty don't get into Yale. That doesn't make people who get into Yale bad but it does mean that they have advantages that need to be recognized over the girl who didn't get the opportunity to learn English or the guy who didn't get the opportunity to grow up in a safe environment where school was valued. Or, y'know, their kids when it's their turn to not be even remotely close to the "right stuff" for Yale.
And this is what the guy you dismissively shat on for no good reason understands: that it's important for us, as people with incredible luck and massive advantages, aware that no, not everyone has these advantages, and so it behooves us to do right by them, too. What Haufler did is cool and it sucks that his amazingly selective private school got frowny at a student for a similar project, but as injustices go, this shit's pretty small--if he's of a mind to, he's gonna walk out of college into a job making no less than the eighty-eighth percentile of individual income in this country[5]. Having your kids be nearly guaranteed to do no better, and probably worse, than you did, in a system designed to keep you where you are? That's pretty big. That's what he's saying. That's what's actually important.
[4] Oh please please please be the person who thinks two counterexamples invalidate statistics please please please it's been too long. Please and thank you.
No, I wasn't. I don't pretend to know anything about this student. I suppose I could put him into a box and make a bunch of assumptions based on the obvious stats, but that's not how I view people. Every individual has their own life story. So, when I see a woman, a Hispanic person, etc. I don't see a victim or someone who's disadvantaged. You have a different view and that's fine.
Actually, you've found a convenient way to elevate yourself to the role of hero while looking down on an entire gender and other races. Must feel great.
I'm not a hero. I'm aware of the advantages I have by winning the parental lottery. And I also understand that people who think saying "we treat people who aren't like us like shit and it's magnified across generations" is "looking down" have a vested interest continued societal unfairness.
Let's set aside for a second the high-end schools' tendency towards legacy admissions, which clearly isn't going to be biased towards the children of the upper class who are certainly not predominantly white and loaded (that smell is not the dog, folks, it's sarcasm). Have you seen the demographics of Yale[1]? Even just racial demographics put WTFs to this[2]. 7% of Yale students are black--16% of Americans born between 1992 and 1996 are black (and overwhelmingly poor). 9% of Yale students are Hispanic. 14% of Americans born between 1992 and 1996 are Hispanic (and are comparatively only often poor). Does that seem like it makes sense to you if certain populations weren't getting advantages based on external factors?
"They pick the best" often comes up as a possibility to answer that. Because they sort of do, social signaling aside (and Haufler is white and male so he's a few rungs up that ladder too). But isn't it funny how "the best" generally also correlates to "white or Asian and rich"? SAT scores against income[3] are pretty indicative; SAT against racial demographics[also 3] likewise. This is not hard: non-Asian minorities are overwhelmingly more likely to be really-goddam-poor than whites and Asians and are much more likely to score like shit on the signaling tests that are your ticket to the upper-crust-signaling environment of a Yale. (And, as mentioned, even poor whites are more likely to have the social signals that are attractive to groups that select for "their type of people"--like, you know, most societal gatekeepers.) The conflation of economic and social advantages what makes these people privileged.
Crack babies don't get into Yale[4]. Children of illegal immigrants don't get into Yale. People who grow up in extreme poverty don't get into Yale. That doesn't make people who get into Yale bad but it does mean that they have advantages that need to be recognized over the girl who didn't get the opportunity to learn English or the guy who didn't get the opportunity to grow up in a safe environment where school was valued. Or, y'know, their kids when it's their turn to not be even remotely close to the "right stuff" for Yale.
And this is what the guy you dismissively shat on for no good reason understands: that it's important for us, as people with incredible luck and massive advantages, aware that no, not everyone has these advantages, and so it behooves us to do right by them, too. What Haufler did is cool and it sucks that his amazingly selective private school got frowny at a student for a similar project, but as injustices go, this shit's pretty small--if he's of a mind to, he's gonna walk out of college into a job making no less than the eighty-eighth percentile of individual income in this country[5]. Having your kids be nearly guaranteed to do no better, and probably worse, than you did, in a system designed to keep you where you are? That's pretty big. That's what he's saying. That's what's actually important.
--
[1] http://oir.yale.edu/yale-factsheet
[2] http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop3.asp
[3] http://domesatreview.com/content/sat-test-demographics-incom...
[4] Oh please please please be the person who thinks two counterexamples invalidate statistics please please please it's been too long. Please and thank you.
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S...