I'm disadvantaged, right?

[mTOR]

---

Members do not see this ad.

^Clearly we're talking a matter of degree. You're correct in asserting there are distinctly anti-academic peer groups in nearly all schools. This is particularly true in the lower tracks of public schools. And, perhaps in otherwise decent, integrated, schools even more so amongst minorities in those lower tracks.

Still, I would argue the educationally-relevant hardships from having an economically disadvantaged background are likely nowhere near as influential or significant to your academic trajectory if you went to a private school. In fact, one would think they would be mitigated to a large extent.

I, myself, come from a single parent working class family. I qualified for my med school's Scholarships/Loans for Disadvantaged Students program. And this is my neighborhood back home (yes I know, paints my community is such a positive light). But I escaped the pitfalls of my locally zoned schools by being tracked favorably and by attending magnet schools since middle school.

Needless to say, I did not feel inclined to checking the disadvantage box (almost 5 years ago when applying).

 

[DrLeon]

^Clearly we're talking a matter of degree. You're correct in asserting there are distinctly anti-academic peer groups in nearly all schools. This is particularly true in the lower tracks of public schools. And, perhaps in otherwise decent, integrated, schools even more so amongst minorities in those lower tracks.

Still, I would argue the educationally-relevant hardships from having an economically disadvantaged background are likely nowhere near as influential or significant to your academic trajectory if you went to a private school. In fact, one would think they would be mitigated to a large extent.

I, myself, come from a single parent working class family. I qualified for my med school's Scholarships/Loans for Disadvantaged Students program. And this is my neighborhood back home (yes I know, paints my community is such a positive light). But I escaped the pitfalls of my locally zoned schools by being tracked favorably and by attending magnet schools since middle school.

Needless to say, I did not feel inclined to checking the disadvantage box (almost 5 years ago when applying).

This is why the disadvantaged status is self reported. While you may not feel that you were disadvantaged, that is your specific situation and one may argue that you still had disadvantages. I also had a chance to begin attending a magnet high school. I had to wake up at 4 am to catch several buses there and repeat the same process to get home hours after my friends. Although I attended a better school, I didn't have enough time to actually take advantage of it. This did not persist and I finished my high school career at a lower tier school where I was better able to utilize my time at the expense of quality. The tangible and intangible sacrifices made to attain a better education also factor into determining disadvantaged status.

 

[Bartelby]

This is why the disadvantaged status is self reported. While you may not feel that you were disadvantaged, that is your specific situation and one may argue that you still had disadvantages.

Agreed.

For those of you interested in a summary of medical student's backgrounds here is a good one: https://www.aamc.org/download/102338/data/aibvol8no1.pdf. Should someone who got to go to a private school but still lived in a poor neighborhood, received food stamps, had to work to help pay bills, and experienced genuine worry throughout childhood about his/her family's ability to pay for basic needs feel bad about checking the 'disadvantaged' box? Personally I think no, but I suppose any one of us can look and find others who had it worse than we did growing up.

 

[mTOR]

Fair enough. And ^solid link. I've always had suspicions that the profession of medicine, and the hoops necessary for entry (which are based on academic indices and trajectories heavily determined by parental socioeconomic status and levels of neighborhood disadvantage), behaves like a de facto socioeconomic class-based filter that ensures the development of a hereditary aristocracy of wealth. It seems, as evidence by that link, that there's some truth to that. 👎

Any data to break down class diversity by parental profession (or even, by percentage of students who have a parent in the field)?

 

[Avoidthetiger]

Still, I would argue the educationally-relevant hardships from having an economically disadvantaged background are likely nowhere near as influential or significant to your academic trajectory if you went to a private school. In fact, one would think they would be mitigated to a large extent.

I was going to argue against this state - saying that i think neighborhood has more influence than the school attended. But I think the issue is that if a parent or student values education enough to send their child to a private school - they might automatically succeed more so than the individual in the public school. I think it all comes back the family and the way they were raised -- or the students individual drive. If one is willing to travel an hour to get to a private school (that might be paid for by a need-based scholarship), they are atleast in class - learning. Whereas, if the parent doesn't care if you show up to school, doesn't give you the money to catch the bus - well, you automatically are going to care less about school than the kid at private school (or the kid that shows up at public school everyday). More so than neighborhood or private/public school, it's the family that matters. And usually the neighborhood around that family shares the same anti-school or pro-school sentiment. I don't think it matters if the private or public school is better or worse compared to each other. I think it's all about the family's attitude (or the students desire to learn - if the family even thinks they 'act to white"). But if you throw a whole bunch of anti-school student into a private school, they aren't going to succeed.

sorry if that wasn't all coherent. it's getting late - but this is a topic I love to discuss.

This is why the disadvantaged status is self reported.

I agree. But I would say if you got government assistance for a good chunk of your life, you should mark yourself disadvantage - regardless if you went to a private or magnet high school. That only shows that you or your family value education or that they knew you were gifted.

Since the OP is from Cleveland, I just want to point at that Cleveland offers all families from K-8 (that extends through high school) to apply for a lottery to get money to attend a private school. It has nothing to do with grades... just if your parents apply and you get it. Additionally "If the private school's tuition is higher than the Cleveland Scholarship amount and if the student's family income is above 200 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, the family may have to pay the difference or participate in volunteer service activities in lieu of cash payment." from this website

The state government is giving the family a chance to attend private school - covering 75-90% of the costs normally. The family could still have issues at home that would make them disadvantaged.... but just values education.

EDIT:

Any data to break down class diversity by parental profession (or even, by percentage of students who have a parent in the field)?

Here's one I have seen

 

[mTOR]

I was going to argue against this state - saying that i think neighborhood has more influence than the school attended. But I think the issue is that if a parent or student values education enough to send their child to a private school - they might automatically succeed more so than the individual in the public school. I think it all comes back the family and the way they were raised -- or the students individual drive. If one is willing to travel an hour to get to a private school (that might be paid for by a need-based scholarship), they are atleast in class - learning. Whereas, if the parent doesn't care if you show up to school, doesn't give you the money to catch the bus - well, you automatically are going to care less about school than the kid at private school (or the kid that shows up at public school everyday). More so than neighborhood or private/public school, it's the family that matters. And usually the neighborhood around that family shares the same anti-school or pro-school sentiment. I don't think it matters if the private or public school is better or worse compared to each other. I think it's all about the family's attitude (or the students desire to learn - if the family even thinks they 'act to white").

I agree that family matters, but not necessarily the family of an individual child. Nearly all of the research I'm aware of that looks at education outcomes of children in programs that target the home environment of low income parents have been an utter failure. Rather, instead of individual families in isolation, what seems to matter the most is the collective influence of the home environments from which the children making up the peer group come from. Well educated, highly skilled, professional class parents tend to put a large investment (time, effort, and money) into the education and literacy of their children. More importantly, they tend to live in neighborhoods with like minded parents and often go to schools populated by children whose parents also share these beliefs. These children experience and are encouraged by early academic success. More importantly, they develop pro-school attitudes which they bring to their peer-group and, since it resonates with the at-home values of the majority of the peer group, is accepted as a part of the peer culture. This peer group culture, as Judith Rich Harris very cogently argues, is what shapes social behavior (e.g., levels of academic engagement).

Take a kid out the urban inner city slums and throw him in a private school from a young age (where he will be going to school with kids whose parents care so much about education they're willing to pay for it) and, provided he has limited contact with his neighborhood peers, he will end up on an academic trajectory far different than his economic background would suggest, regardless of his immediate family situation.

But if you throw a whole bunch of anti-school student into a private school, they aren't going to succeed.

As Harris states, "Numbers matter." Take a bunch of kids from a highly concentrated disadvantaged neighborhood and their peer culture is likely to be one where aggression is normative and academic engagement is not prioritized. Put them anywhere, together, and it's not likely to change their behavior since their peer culture will remain intact. Especially if they're in middle childhood (6 - 12yo) or beyond. However, split them up (so they aren't able to self-categorize themselves into a group with a distinct peer culture) and they in all likelihood will succeed relative to their prior trajectory (provided they haven't fallen too far behind).

 

[mTOR]

Oh yeh,

EDIT: Here's one I have seen

Good lookin out 👍

 

[Ursa]

Your mom couldn't pay for heat, but she sent you to private school? Could be the dumbest thing I've ever heard

A) I didn't take it out of context purposefully, I skimmed and misunderstood your post
B) I could care less about what some pre med says, in fact, I find it pretty hilarious how offended you got.

...wasn't even talking to you...?

Is Ursa a troll

All day, every day.

 

[Darwinism]

Wasn't talking to you either

 

[Swiss Medical]

So what if you are disadvantaged??? What is the significance???

 

[senorsquishie]

So what if you are disadvantaged??? What is the significance???

Agreed, what is the point of identifing yourself?

 

[Long Way to Go]

So what if you are disadvantaged??? What is the significance???

Because if you struggled to acquire basic essentials (shelter, food, heat) as a child it's quite remarkable that if you got to college at all, let alone did well enough in it to even be applying for medical schools.