A lot of this is a matter of perspective in how the left views race and class and education. The reason why liberals have begun to turn on things like selective schools, is because in practice, what tends to happen is that those with the most money and time are able to tutor their children more, and as a result, produce more 'special' st…
A lot of this is a matter of perspective in how the left views race and class and education. The reason why liberals have begun to turn on things like selective schools, is because in practice, what tends to happen is that those with the most money and time are able to tutor their children more, and as a result, produce more 'special' students.
This is not a liberal idea either. Look up "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a compelling case that what creates the smartest people and most successful people is their access and time. Example: Bill Gates grew up in a very affluent community, whose school could afford a computer before they were everywhere. As a result, he got more time to use it, and thus had longer to develop the skills that would later make him billions. Another example is used with pro hockey players, almost all of whom are born in one part of the year, because that's right before the cutoff for younger players when they start in their teens. Basically, all of them got more time by being younger, and as a result were more likely by a large margin to become pros later in life.
So the liberal issue is this: if what matters is how affluent you are, not how smart you are, then such programs are little more than segregated schools where rich people who can afford to give their kids greater access to resources send their kids. That's not inherently a race thing, but it's undoubtedly true that poorer schools tend to have larger populations of people of color. Thus, fewer people of color end up at these selective schools, because they're poorer, and have to do things like work jobs and whose parents are likely working more hours to support themselves as well. That's where the 'racist' critique comes in.
A lot of this is a matter of perspective in how the left views race and class and education. The reason why liberals have begun to turn on things like selective schools, is because in practice, what tends to happen is that those with the most money and time are able to tutor their children more, and as a result, produce more 'special' students.
This is not a liberal idea either. Look up "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a compelling case that what creates the smartest people and most successful people is their access and time. Example: Bill Gates grew up in a very affluent community, whose school could afford a computer before they were everywhere. As a result, he got more time to use it, and thus had longer to develop the skills that would later make him billions. Another example is used with pro hockey players, almost all of whom are born in one part of the year, because that's right before the cutoff for younger players when they start in their teens. Basically, all of them got more time by being younger, and as a result were more likely by a large margin to become pros later in life.
So the liberal issue is this: if what matters is how affluent you are, not how smart you are, then such programs are little more than segregated schools where rich people who can afford to give their kids greater access to resources send their kids. That's not inherently a race thing, but it's undoubtedly true that poorer schools tend to have larger populations of people of color. Thus, fewer people of color end up at these selective schools, because they're poorer, and have to do things like work jobs and whose parents are likely working more hours to support themselves as well. That's where the 'racist' critique comes in.