FERPA: A Window into the Admissions Processes of Selective Colleges

I was thinking about the lecture from class about crossing class boundaries and how different students from different backgrounds interacted at Amherst College in Elizabeth Aries's book, and remembered this article that I read earlier this year. The author of the article is a student at Yale, and was able to read her admissions files by using a quirk in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). She learned that although admission is need-blind (income is not considered in admissions decisions), a large amount of data was collected to determine her social background such as "[her] parents’ jobs and where they’d gone to college; a series of drop-down menus allowed admissions officers to note the percentage of students at [her] high school that were minorities and those that went on to a four-year college. There was a checkbox to note whether or not [she] lived in a low-income census tract." Yale makes a concerted effort to admit students from vastly different areas and backgrounds, especially those from inner-city and rural public schools. An admissions officer noted that the author would be a good admit from Minneapolis public schools, but she notes that she is nowhere near an accurate representation of her school district, "which is just 33% white, where 65% of students fall under federal poverty measures, and where almost a third of students are English-language learners."

The author says she herself is white and middle class, the daughter of parents who both went to Princeton, and that the other people she knows of from her school district at Yale are from the exact same demographic—white and middle class with parents who have graduated college—despite the fact that most people from that district do not fit that profile. Even though we discussed how higher education in elite institutions has become more open to those not of the old money elite, I think it's notable that this case, though possibly not representative of the whole, the admissions officers still have biases based on their own habituses (habiti?) regarding who should be excepted. Even though by the letter colleges are admitting more people from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds, I think it's important to try to make sure that personal biases aren't actually coming into play.

Is Concert Dress Code Class Discriminatory?

I'm still in a band frame of mind right now, so I'll discuss something that happened this past Sunday that made me think of class in a context I hadn't considered before. I was prepping the stage before our concert this past Sunday and got a text message from one of my friends in the band saying he didn't have the all-black attire that was the dress code for the concert, and asked if he could wear something else. I said the answer was no, and that it would be better if he borrowed a friend's clothes to use for the day. After the concert, he remarked that he didn't have the money to spend on a set of clothes that he would only use once. I realized I hadn't been thinking about concert dress that way before, but in retrospect it does seem like an aspect that is unintentionally exclusionary toward people with less spending money to throw around.

I've been playing in school bands for the past ten years, and not once have I encountered a person who wasn't able to pull together the necessary articles of clothing in time for the concert. The policy of every single conductor I've had was that if you weren't in concert dress on the day of the concert, you couldn't perform. Does this mean that school bands are class exclusive, dissuading people who are not of the appropriate social class from joining in the first place? If there are students struggling to make ends meet financially, and can't spend money on concert dress or music lessons, do they even consider joining a band an option? You don't need money to join in the first place, but you do need it if you want to continue for a significant period of time, or progress to a level where it no longer becomes necessary (unless you have friends or family who are willing to provide the resources necessary in lieu of any money being spent). Maybe this isn't the case, and it isn't a significant obstacle, but it certainly seems like it might be; being a part of a band might be another component of the middle class education framework designed to exclude those who don't fit the mold.

Class Intersection: A Day at the BSO

I'm a member of both the Jazz Ensemble and the Wind Ensemble, and having all of our concerts this past weekend reminded me of some of the times when I went along with a group of friends to see the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra perform at Meyerhoff Concert Hall in Mount Vernon. In hindsight, BSO concerts were events where a lot of class mixing occurred; the BSO has a great student discount program, where they can pay $20 for access to an entire year of BSO concerts, and as a results a lot of college students go to BSO concerts on a regular basis. However, the main demographic in attendance is always elderly, affluent white people wearing authentic fur coats and leather shoes. So you can imagine why there would be a little bit of tension when both groups meet at the same location (normally expressed in the form of raised eyebrows and disapproving faces).

Before every concert, there is always a cocktail party in the lobby, where all of the ladies and gentlemen socialize before the main event (what they talk about I'm not sure, but they all seem like they know each other from somewhere, like the entire lot of them are old friends—it reminds me of those scenes from old books and movies set in Europe where the social elite would all go to the opera). Juxtapose those people in suits and dresses with the college kids in jeans and T-shirts and the result is a lot of furtive glances of disapproval and some hushed whispers by the elders, as if we were corrupting an institution that they held sacred but didn't want to tell us to our faces. (These are only the reactions that I had, mind you—I make no guarantees as to the truth of them, it's just how I felt at the time.) When I went, I enjoyed myself a lot because I had taken enough music classes in my lifetime to have the cultural capital necessary to appreciate it all, but I did feel very out of place among a large amount of people that I am sure had way more money than I did. The BSO is open to all students, but it does feel a bit like an exclusive club, because only some classes have the cultural capital necessary to appreciate the music. Even though the BSO does a lot of community outreach, I have a hard time imagining an inner-city student in a Baltimore public school going to a BSO concert out of his/her own free will and enjoying it.

Occupty Wall Street

Today I'm going to refocus back to the domestic issues of class and discuss the other movement I mentioned yesterday: Occupy Wall Street. The movement began in Zuccotti Park in September, 2011 in New York City's financial district as a protest against corporate influence on democracy, and against the growing income disparity between the nation's top 1% of earners and the remaining 99% below. I found this (somewhat sensational) article that discusses the inequality that the movement is protesting against, and its underlying social causes. It first makes the point that the movement's "We are the 99%" banner is well-grounded by some science, citing a report by the Congressional Budget Office that

"...between 1979 and 2007 the top 1 percent saw their average real after-tax household income grow by 275 percent and that much of this increase had taken place in the past few years of the new millennium. It also noted that between 2005 and 2007, the after-tax income received by the 20 percent of the population with the highest income exceeded the after-tax income of the remaining 80 percent."

It also cites another study, which says that not only is the American middle class shrinking, but the increasing income divide between the upper and lower earners in American society is creating increased segregation between affluent and low-income neighborhoods. The author states that many social-democratic or socialist societies in countries in Europe, as well as Canada, "have systems of social distribution and  public provisioning for social security, and for  public goods such as education and health" that "ineffective" democracies such as America lack, and blames it on America's political right's view of redistributive measures of income and care as socialist, in direct contrast with America's ideology of the individual working hard to achieve personal wealth.

I'm not sure I agree with everything the author is saying (but admittedly him calling America's democracy ineffective is rubbing me the wrong way), but he does seem to be making a cogent argument that the inequality issues and class divide America is facing is fundamentally rooted in our political and economic systems. In recent years the movement has become a mere trickle of its former self, but it did bring to light important issues regarding the social structure of America. I don't think socialism, like the author seems to be suggesting, is an appropriate answer to the problem; I think it's possible to work within the democratic, capitalist framework we have already if enough individuals are able to organize themselves and give a voice to the issues.

But what do you think? Let me know in the comments!

Pussy Riot: Exposing Russian Class Divisions

Returning to the topic of class on an international scale, when we were discussing the Occupy movement in class I was reminded (probably because someone else mentioned it) of Pussy Riot, the band in Russia that made headlines for performing in a church and getting arrested. I know the message was feminist and definitely anti-Putin (or at least anti-establishment), but I wasn't really considering social class when I first heard about it. Now, however, I've come across this article that does a great job analyzing the issue sociologically. One of the main points it makes is the rejection of Pussy Riot by a large segment of the Russian population is because of a class difference between that message's target audience and the majority of post-Soviet Russia.

Pussy Riot made national headlines in 2012 when the band performed a mock "prayer" in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. They were kicked out in less than a minute, but later released their "full" performance on the Internet, in which they appealed to the Virgin Mary "to become a feminist and oust Putin and condemn Orthodox priests as KGB agents." There was an incredible amount of backlash directed at the performers, and two were convicted of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred and of offending the right of believers to hold their rituals," and sent to a prison colony for two years. However, the band did find some support in Russia, both for its feminist and political messages, and much more in the West:

"It exposed a watershed  between a creative or new class of urban intellectuals and globally connected elites, whose life options are immersed in the technological, economic, and cultural transformations of the information/digital economy and whose goals embrace visibility, autonomy and self-expression and, on the other hand, the “masses” immersed in a more material economy and lifestyle. Their “wrath” at post-socialist economic inequalities translated into a rejection of Pussy Riot, whose protest centered around non-traditional issues and cultural codes and who became identified with global capitalism."

 It is partly because Pussy Riot chose to  publicize itself via new the Internet and social media that it found the support of the educated, tech-savvy, new elite of Russia — while also alienating itself from the masses.

Gattaca: The Class of Genetics

Quite a large number of sci-fi books and movies deal with concepts of social class, but one that came to mind recently was Gattaca, which can be found here. The plot takes place in a version of the future where eugenics has progressed to such a degree that parents can choose exactly which hereditary traits they want to appear in their children's genetic profile. As such, DNA is the predominant metric of social class, with those who have the "best" DNA at the top of the social hierarchy, and those with inferior profiles lower down. The story follows Vincent, a genetic "in-valid" conceived through natural means, who grows up with myopia and a congenital heart defect as a result. His parents, regretting their decision, decide to have another child using genetic selection. While growing up, Vincent's brother Anton always seems to best him in every way, especially at a game of chicken that they played where they competed to see who could swim out into the sea the farthest. However, one day, Vincent beats Anton and saves him from drowning. Eventually, the siblings go their separate ways. Vincent has always wanted to be an astronaut, but because of his genetic profile he is only allowed to perform menial labor.

Featuring Uma Thurman, Jude Law, and that other guy.

Vincent overcomes this discrimination by purchasing the identity of Jerome Morrow, a swimmer who only gt a silver medal in the Olympics despite a superior genetic profile, and who became paralyzed after jumping in front of a car in a suicide attempt while out of the country. Jerome supplies Vincent with genetic material to pass the genetic tests that are routinely applied. Vincent gets a job at Gattaca Aerospace as a navigator on their next launch after passing a urine test. A murder in the space program complicates affairs (you can watch the movie yourself if you want to see what happens), but eventually Vincent crosses paths with his brother again, and Anton, feeling insecure about how Vincent managed to make it farther than he did despite his own genetic superiority, challenges him to one more game of chicken, and loses.

Clearly the moral is that genetics aren't a determinant of success, but a society where class isn't based upon income or behaviors is interesting to think about. The closest thing I think we discussed in class was the rise of the new educated elite overthrowing the "old money" upper class when the college education system became more open-access, but even education is something acquired, not something intrinsic to a person like DNA. Not that we haven't tried making it that way — there have been plenty of times where eugenics was popular in the US as a way of controlling the traits of the population (and it seemed like a good idea to Nazi Germany, too). That's not a reality that I'd look forward to, but it does make me wonder if social class might be based on something completely different in the future.

Table Manners: Hallmark of the Middle Class?

I was mulling over the reading by Paul Fusell we had in class a while back and came across this sentence in Chapter 2: "The middle class is where things like table manners assume an awful importance..." This reminded me of my own middle class background, but prior to reading this I hadn't really associated things like emphasis on table manners with the middle class; I just thought that they were something naggy parents forced their kids to endure so that they would grow up to eat like civilized adults. If anything, I thought it was a hallmark of higher classes because of all the different utensils at fancy restaurants (you're supposed to start from the outside and work your way in!). But upon hearing that generally the higher up you get above middle class the less you really care about table manners and place settings, the logic behind why they would be middle class traits made more sense. The upper classes used to emphasize such things, and the middle classes sought to emulate them, but the upper classes were class secure and stopped caring when the fancy struck them. However, the reputation of proper table manners as something genuinely upper-class stuck, and that is why ultimately those in the middle class place more emphasis on them today.

This also reminds me of a pet peeve of mine; I was taught what proper place setting was by my parents, but for some reason my little brother always used to do everything backwards, and it bugged me like crazy. He put the knife and spoon on the left side of the plate, and the fork on the right, and I couldn't stand it! I have OCPD as it is, and when I walk into my room I can immediately tell and be annoyed if one little thing isn't in its proper place, so a small thing like that just grated against my soul. Ironically, my parents didn't seem to care. My brother doesn't do that much anymore, but whenever I see an incorrect place setting I still die a little on the inside; I guess my habitus will forever be fundamentally middle class!

From Homogeneity to Division: Class in Contemporary Japan

While plenty of my time this semester has been devoted to this sociology course on class, another fairly large chunk of my time has gone to studying first-year Japanese. While almost all the emphasis of this course has been placed entirely on domestic issues, I thought it would be cool to take a peek at class in another country that I was interested in. Here's an excellently written article that gives a great overview of the contemporary Japanese class and labor structure. The article observes that while a paradigm shift seems to be underway among popular perception of Japan as a homogeneous society to one that is class stratified, it was in fact that way to begin with, the difference in perception largely due to the current economic downturn and job instability that Japan is experiencing. The stratification described seems strikingly similar to what we've been discussing about classes in America; "on one end of the spectrum [are] the new rich who have almost instantly amassed vast wealth in such areas as information technology, new media and financial manipulation," while on the other end are
"the unemployed, the homeless, day laborers and other marginalized members of society." However, the majority of the Japanese labor market, workers in retail, service, and companies in other industries, have been experiencing shifts in labor practices that may have left them worse off, both in terms of finances and quality of life.

Traditionally, Japanese corporations have operated under a "paternal-familial" style of management, where employees are treated as the "family" of the company, and supervisors become actively involved in their workers. However, this model is changing in favor of those that are more cost effective, given the recent economic downturn. Recently, employers have shifted toward casualizing the work force (hiring more part-time employees who are not eligible for company benefits.
According to the article, "many of these non-regular workers form the ‘working poor,’ a class of individuals who attempt to work hard in vulnerable jobs but are unable to get out of the cycle of underemployment and undersubsistence." Employers have also been shifting toward performance-based models of pay, where employees must meet certain performance goals in a timely manner in order to gain pay increases. This has led to employees often working overtime to meet the goals, and greater job insecurity in the case where employees are unable to meet the goals. All of these practices lead to lower financial returns and lower qualities of life for the vast majority of Japanese workers who have experienced them.

In addition, the article also posits that Japan has shifted from a culture of industrial capitalism to one of cultural capitalism, focusing on the production of symbols and meanings rather than the amount of goods produced. This is exemplified by the shift in Japanese products such as cell phones to allow for more customization (which the consumer base now prefers) over the standardized versions of goods that were prevalent before. This mirrors the social class stratification of the nation, as different versions of the same product considered to be of a "higher status" value are prioritized, rather than the possession of the good itself, since the subsistence needs of the population have been met.

Key & Peele

Remember that Key & Peele Harry Potter video we watched in class a while back? I've found some more where those came from, although I think they deal with culture a bit more than class. First up:

 

 We did spend time talking about the black middle class, and the cultural elements that make it distinct from other classes. The main point was that blacks in America have a shared cultural history and ancestry, but as time progressed — specifically after the Civil Rights Movement — more were able to achieve the education and income necessary to reach the middle class. However, there are still many blacks that have not reached this level of class, and it is this disparity that creates differences in the stratification of the black community, and by extension black culture.

Key and Peele are fun to watch because they juxtapose both elements of black culture that we would stereotypically associate as "black" with other behaviors that we would not, as well as interaction across racial lines, hence the humor. Case in point, the video above: Peele plays President Obama, and greets all of the blacks he meets with gestures of familiarity (hugs, high fives, what you'd expect from a stereotypical "black greeting" — he even references a Drake song), but greets all whites (even a baby) with a handshake and a "Nice to meet you." We find the disparity humorous, but it does bring to light the two opposing pulls those in the black middle class experience: the need to fit in with their black peers, and the desire (in some cases) to assimilate themselves into the culture of the white-majority middle class they have found themselves in (as the video we saw in class about Jack and Jill pointed out). The following video by Key & Peele makes a similar point:

Class Clash: NYC and Walmart

Back home in Staten Island, one thing that I've noticed for a long time is that, despite the prevalence of its commercials on TV, there is no Walmart in New York City. I was never really sure why, but I was vaguely aware that it had something to do with Walmart's reputation of taking terrible care of its employees and unions in the city picketing until any notion of Walmart being able to get a foothold there dissolved. Its last big effort was an attempt to get a location in a mall that was being constructed in Brooklyn, but no financial agreement could be reached. I was surprised to learn, however, that while NYC's previous mayor and Hopkins alum, Michael Bloomberg, supported the retailer's right to open a location in the city, our current mayor, Bill DeBlasio, is in opposition.

Previously, DeBlasio and other Dems have spoken against Walmart opening a location in NYC on the grounds that the retailer takes away "good jobs" and competes with small businesses, while creating many low-paying jobs that inevitably force the government to subsidize workers' incomes with welfare. However, I think there is also merit to looking at the other side of the coin: while middle class individuals and those workers that can afford to be members of large unions or special-interest groups might oppose Walmart on the grounds of not paying their workers enough or allowing them to organize, it still is the largest retailer in the nation, and one of its largest employers; this op-ed in the NY Post makes the case that Walmart provides jobs to areas that may not have many available, and provides cheap goods and services to middle- and low-income families who may not be able to afford much else. It may also serve to revitalize poorer neighborhoods economically by serving as "the “anchor” of economic expansion plans, such as new shopping centers that also house small businesses and a myriad of franchises." I for one think the author has a point, but I wouldn't be personally affected by any decision regarding the matter; I'd still be able to use Walmart pricing in many price-match deals at existing retailers anyway. Those most affected would probably be individuals without much income in need of a job or cheap goods, and I think Walmart would fill that role despite the opposition levied against it.

What do you think?

The Cost of Class: Poverty's Effect on the Brain

Just stumbled on this article from IFL Science that reminded me about our discussion in class relating students being living on the same block as a shooting with their lowered SAT scores. The article talks about a recent study by MIT about the effect of income disparities on the brain structures of children. The researchers used MRI machines to scan the brains of 23 students from lower-income households (defined as meeting the criteria for a free or reduced-price lunch), and 35 students from higher-income households. Results indicated that the brains of the lower-income children had thinner temporal and occipital lobes, which are responsible for vision and storing knowledge.

The study successfully linked these differences in brain structure with students' academic achievement by making them take the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Only 57% of the lower-income children achieved proficiency, compared with 91% of higher-income students. The researchers state that the differences in cortical thickness could account for as much as 44 percent of the income achievement gap observed. While the study did not explore any of the fundamental causes behind these differences in brain anatomy, it is noted that "previous studies have shown that lower-income students are more likely to suffer from stress in early childhood, have more limited access to educational resources, and receive less exposure to spoken language early in life. These factors have all been linked to lower academic achievement." It also notes that these changes may not necessarily be permanent.

Spring Break 2015: LA

Remember those hiking boots I was talking about earlier? I needed them for the first part of my friend group's spring break trip — hiking the Grand Canyon over three days. It was hard, but really fun and breathtakingly beautiful. After we were done with that though, we moved on to the next phase of our trip: we drove ten hours to Los Angeles up from Tuscon, and stayed there for four more days at a friend's grandparents' condo (they were out of the country). I thought my friend was rich (her brother was getting tutoring for something when we stopped by her house, and she has five TVs!), but I saw some status symbols in LA that I'd be hard-pressed to find anywhere else.

On one day of adventuring we decided to go for a drive through Beverley Hills. The amount of class and snootiness was enough to make some of my friends visibly uncomfortable. We passed an exorbitant amount of fancy cars — Porches, Bugattis,  MacLarens, Astin Martins, Bentleys, Rolls Royces — they were all there. We saw three Tesla Model S cars in less than a minute. That's more than I've seen in Baltimore in an entire year. The houses that we saw were basically hotels or miniature palaces, but those were only the ones we saw. For a large number of them, all we saw were fenced-in driveways; the houses were up high on hills and obscured by foliage. These are what Paul Fussell calls the "rich out-of-sight," those so rich that they find others gawking at their wealth a nuisance rather than an ego booster. We didn't have much interaction other than that, but I thought it was a neat experience.

Scientific Research: Funded by the Wealthy

Our discussion in class about elite universities with swimming requirements instituted by wealthy benefactors reminded me of this NY Times article I read last spring. It makes an interesting point: as government funding for science has declined (especially in the wake of the financial crisis), extremely wealthy philanthropists, such as Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, and Lawrence Ellison, have donated millions to fill the gap. The funding serves as a major accelerator for research, funding ventures that the federal government may deem too risky and pharmaceutical companies may deem too unprofitable. However, this has created funding biases, with funding generally going to wealthy institutions at the expense of poor ones, and to topics the donors find personally important or interesting rather than a broad spectrum of research areas.

One of the areas that has seen several drastic disparities in funding is disease research. Most of the money philanthropists have donated went to funding research to find cures for diseases that had personally affected them or their families. For example, Tom and Ginny Hughes donated millions to the cystic fibrosis foundation because they have two daughters with the disease. However, funding from philanthropists have disproportionately gone toward diseases that disproportionately affect white people, such as ovarian cancer or melanoma, although some campaigns, like that for prostate cancer, has benefited many across racial divides. However others, such as sickle-cell anemia, have largely been ignored by donors.

Towson Mall

I went to the Towson Town Center not too long ago to get a pair of hiking boots (more on that later). It's the only mall near Hopkins, so I've been there before, but this time I went in with my eyes trained on class. Going to the mall in Towson is always a particularly jarring experience for me — I come from a middle class household, and generally it's been my practice to try to avoid spending as much money as possible when there's something I need to buy (I'm more likely to choose Kohl's or Payless over Macy's and Nordstrom, for example). The Staten Island Mall back at home has plenty of stores and boutiques I would consider pretty upscale, like Macy's and Coach and Foot Locker, but it also has places like Sears and JC Penney which were more suited to my budget. I think the mall in Towson might be targeted toward an entirely different income bracket (or at least is open to the possibility that there are a class of people with shopping tastes above the rest of us plebians).

Towson Town Center - A magical mecca of rampant capitalism. Price labels not included.

Take a look at the directories for both: here's the directory for the Staten Island Mall, and here's the one for the Towson Town Center. Notice anything? Although some of the offerings are the same, I think that there's a marked difference in the cultural capital both places are trying to offer. Back home, I remember gaggles of high school girls traveling in packs to stores like Hot Topic, Aeropostale, and Hollister (those were all the rage back in high school). Towson doesn't have a Hot Topic or a Hollister; they're replaced by Louis Vuitton and Nordstrom. They don't even have a JC Penney or a Sears! While the Staten Island Mall is definitely more geared to somewhat affluent teens and their middle to upper-middle class parents, Towson skips out on the teen demographic entirely, instead focusing on the brands that relatively wealthy adults value.

Money and Happiness

We all know the classic saying, "Money can't buy happiness," but is there any scientific basis to the old adage? Apparently so: I was scouring PubMed this morning looking for an answer to that very question, and came upon this article from the Center for Health and Well-Being at Princeton University. The study used data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index to look for correlations between various participant characteristics and their subjective well-being. The poll data is unusual in that it focuses on two concepts that make up subjective well-being: "Emotional well-being (sometimes called hedonic well-being or experienced happiness) refers to the emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, fascination, anxiety, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to a person's thoughts about his or her life." (i.e., "How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?"

The study found that both life evaluation and emotional well-being rose with income, but emotional well-being reached a satiation point at about $75,000/year. Thus, while members of the upper classes (those with more income in this case) were more satisfied with their lives, the correlation between happiness and income reaches a maximum level, and is unchanged by further income above this threshold. The study also found that those with lower incomes were associated with lower measurements for both metrics. Thus, although more money does not necessarily lead to more happiness, less money does lead to more unhappiness. This seems like an emotional parallel to Weberian social theory, which looks at life chances as strictly economic (market position); in this case, the life chances proposed are for emotional, rather than material well-being, but the same principles appear to hold true -- money is related to the amount of time and resources households have available to participate in activities better for their well-being (time with family, leisure, etc.)

The Middle Class Lens: Fight For the $15 Minimum Wage

Shortly after waking up this morning, I stumbled upon this argument against enacting a $15 minimum wage, specifically targeted toward fast food workers. His main point is that because working in fast food restaurants "requires no skill, no expertise, and no education," there is no basis for workers earning more per hour than others working in professions he deems more respectable, such as EMTs, dental assistants, or police officers. He directly associates the amount of income each profession is deemed worthy of earning with their worth to society. As he puts it,

"Your job isn’t worth 15 bucks an hour. Sure, as a human being, you’re priceless. As a child of God, you’re precious, a work of art, a freaking miracle. But your job wrapping hamburgers in foil and putting them in paper bags — that has a price tag, and the price tag ain’t anywhere close to the one our economy and society puts on teachers and mechanics."

The majority of his support is anecdotal, based upon his own experiences and those who read his blog and responded to the question of "How long did it take you to earn 15 an hour or more, and what job were you performing?" But the lens through which he is looking at the issue is fundamentally middle class; to him, a fast food job is a temp job:  once you have an education, or have finally succeeded in getting noticed by one of the numerous places to which you've applied for a position, you're eventually supposed to move on to a better paying job. To the author, the fact that there are people out there without the necessary experience or family stability to be able to move past that entry level position does not even occur to him. If someone is from a poor family who never graduates high school, despite effort, winds up working three minimum wage jobs just to stay afloat, can we really judge them as not worth providing enough for them to live comfortably? Not according to this author.

SHSAT: A Struggle of Class and Race at NYC's Elite High Schools

Okay, here it is: Scrapbook (Journal? Let's go with blog)  entry #1! I've been building a list of ideas for posts since the beginning of the semester, so I'll be cranking these out fairly quickly. For my first topic, I decided I'd pick something very near and dear to my heart: The raging debate that has enveloped the NY public education system since my senior year of high school in 2012 (with roots even before that) over admission to New York City's specialized high schools. See, unlike most high schools in New York City, where admission is usually guaranteed if you live in the same district as your high school, or otherwise is based on a combination of standardized test scores and middle school grades, admission to one of NYC's nine specialized high schools, such as Staten Island Tech, my alma mater, is based solely on one's performance when taking the Specialized High School Admissions Test, or SHSAT—at the start of the test, you mark your three top high schools, and after all scores are tallied,  the seats are awarded to all of the top scorers, until they are all filled. Recently, this system has come under fire in a complaint filed by the NAACP in 2012, stating that a single test should not be the sole determinant for entry into the elite schools, and that blacks and Latinos were disproportionately underrepresented in the admitted student population: "For example, of the 967 eighth-grade students offered admission to Stuyvesant for the 2012-13 school year, just 19 (2%) of the students were African American and 32 (3.3%) were Latino." The reforms being pushed in the state legislature (specialized high school admissions have been protected by state law since 1971) would instead build a composite score using other criteria, such as teacher recommendations and middle school report cards.

However, others pose that the underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics in the admitted demographics is not a problem rooted in the test, but rather with the underlying social and economic disparities that riddle the NYC education system. Loosening admissions requirements does not necessarily equate to the admission of black and Hispanic students that will be able to perform well in the rigorous, competitive environment of these schools. Part of the issue, I think, is cultural: The NYCDOE does offer free test prep for the SHSAT to high school students in public schools across the city, but you can be certain not everyone who could benefit from them capitalizes on the opportunity; schools with a higher concentration of economically disadvantaged minority children also tend to have less money available, and academic performance on standardized test scores is lower. And yet a large amount of students in my high school could be considered poor—Asian and Hispanic children who made it in through grit and hard work, and reaped the rewards. The issue likely builds off of the model for the culture of poverty we discussed in class; it is self-perpetuating, where exposure to more violence and the lack of sheltered childhoods creates fatalistic and defeatist behaviors in children exposed to them. Most likely, children from these groups would choose to stick with what they were used to. Even if they were accepted (statistics on those demographics are not kept), they may never attend because they feel the environment would be too different.

I don't think a holistic admissions process is the answer; in fact, the specialized high schools were actually less diverse before the SHSAT was administered. As one article in Brooklyn Magazine puts it, "The fact is that the students who would most benefit from things like an interview process or an evaluation of things like extracurricular activities are those who already possess an awareness of the the type of social cues that are a product of being born into a privileged social, racial, and economic class."
  
Well, what are your thoughts on the issue? Sound off in the comments below!