Page 50 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 50
šolsko polje, letnik xxviii, številka 3–4
2013: p. 129). One 2004 study by the Urban Institute points out that,
in 2001, only about half of black, Hispanic, and American Indian high
school students were likely to graduate, compared to 75 percent of whites
and 77 percent of Asians.12
Meanwhile, it is also well known that only a sliver of the popula-
tion has access to a high quality education and entry into elite colleges
and universities. Standardized test scores are typically expected to be ex-
tremely high for students entering these elite institutions. However, one
report from 2003 tells us that out of a maximum total score of 1600, about
66 percent of students who scored at least 1300 on the SATs come from
the highest quartile of socioeconomic status (Katel, Clark, and Jost, 2013:
p. 132). Class, then, determines success to a considerable degree. Approxi-
mately 75 percent of students entering tier 1 colleges and universities come
from the wealthiest families, according to one Century Foundation re-
port (Katel, Clark, and Jost, 2013: 131). Many of these students are legatees
of relatives who have attended these elite schools (Katel, Clark, and Jost,
2013: 142). Equally, given the education-income-wealth nexus, these une-
qual educational opportunities in turn translate into unequal patterns of
intergenerational wealth and income distribution.
As always, it turns out, poor students end up attending under-re-
sourced schools and, as a result, they are less prepared than their rich
counterparts for college, including performance on standardized tests. It
is not at all surprising, therefore, that students from the most economical-
ly disadvantaged backgrounds can be expected to score up to 399 points
(Kahlenberg & Potter, 2010) lower on the Math and Verbal sections of
the SATs than those from the most advantaged. Poor kids are also signifi-
cantly less likely to devote their time volunteering for notable causes and/
or holding internship positions. If they work at all, they are more likely to
be found holding minimum wage jobs that they go to after school – jobs
that they juggle with their homework assignments.
Given this context, it does not take a very sophisticated mind to fig-
ure out that college admissions policies that predicate a calibration of ac-
ademic promise on standardized test scores, extra-curricular activities,
and other feats associated with “resume-building” miss the point entire-
ly. The system is unequivocally biased in favor of the affluent and in fa-
vor of white students. This is not a level playing field. To instantiate any
kind of equal opportunity in higher education, therefore, requires an in-
12 Christopher B. Swanson, “Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t?: A Statistical Portrait of
Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001,” Educational Policy Center, Urban Insti-
tute, http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/57866/410934-Who-Gradu-
ates-Who-Doesn-t-.PDF.
48
2013: p. 129). One 2004 study by the Urban Institute points out that,
in 2001, only about half of black, Hispanic, and American Indian high
school students were likely to graduate, compared to 75 percent of whites
and 77 percent of Asians.12
Meanwhile, it is also well known that only a sliver of the popula-
tion has access to a high quality education and entry into elite colleges
and universities. Standardized test scores are typically expected to be ex-
tremely high for students entering these elite institutions. However, one
report from 2003 tells us that out of a maximum total score of 1600, about
66 percent of students who scored at least 1300 on the SATs come from
the highest quartile of socioeconomic status (Katel, Clark, and Jost, 2013:
p. 132). Class, then, determines success to a considerable degree. Approxi-
mately 75 percent of students entering tier 1 colleges and universities come
from the wealthiest families, according to one Century Foundation re-
port (Katel, Clark, and Jost, 2013: 131). Many of these students are legatees
of relatives who have attended these elite schools (Katel, Clark, and Jost,
2013: 142). Equally, given the education-income-wealth nexus, these une-
qual educational opportunities in turn translate into unequal patterns of
intergenerational wealth and income distribution.
As always, it turns out, poor students end up attending under-re-
sourced schools and, as a result, they are less prepared than their rich
counterparts for college, including performance on standardized tests. It
is not at all surprising, therefore, that students from the most economical-
ly disadvantaged backgrounds can be expected to score up to 399 points
(Kahlenberg & Potter, 2010) lower on the Math and Verbal sections of
the SATs than those from the most advantaged. Poor kids are also signifi-
cantly less likely to devote their time volunteering for notable causes and/
or holding internship positions. If they work at all, they are more likely to
be found holding minimum wage jobs that they go to after school – jobs
that they juggle with their homework assignments.
Given this context, it does not take a very sophisticated mind to fig-
ure out that college admissions policies that predicate a calibration of ac-
ademic promise on standardized test scores, extra-curricular activities,
and other feats associated with “resume-building” miss the point entire-
ly. The system is unequivocally biased in favor of the affluent and in fa-
vor of white students. This is not a level playing field. To instantiate any
kind of equal opportunity in higher education, therefore, requires an in-
12 Christopher B. Swanson, “Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t?: A Statistical Portrait of
Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001,” Educational Policy Center, Urban Insti-
tute, http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/57866/410934-Who-Gradu-
ates-Who-Doesn-t-.PDF.
48
