Low-Income Applicants

[aaaaaah]

Honestly, it does really bother me that socioeconomic status doesn't hold more weight in the admissions process. I grew up in a single-parent home in Section 8 housing where drugs and alcohol played a huge role in the family dynamic. Maybe I'm just making excuses for myself, and I know that others who faced similar circumstances are a lot more successful than I am, but I do feel like working full time throughout school and taking care of my younger siblings made it a bit more difficult to focus on grades, and I damn sure never would have been able to afford something like an LSAT course. I mean, it was a struggle paying for the used prep books and the $12 LSAC fees. I'm still trying to figure out where that $500 is coming from in two weeks and I'm having a very hard time with the conventional wisdom that rank trumps scholarship money.

All of that said, I do think UCLA is one of the few schools to actually consider socioeconomic diversity. Their application has like 10 questions on family history and I don't think my #s would have gotten me in without my DS. I don't think this is the norm at other schools though.

The problem is, and this is what differentiates AA from Socioeconomic status preferences...

AA focuses on fixing broad social problems. It is NOT related to individual merit. Focusing SES would not do anything to alleviate poverty, it might alleviate which specific people are poor, but not poverty. SES is concerned w/ individual merit, not broader social progress.

Poverty is a structural problem that can't possibly be fixed through preferential treatment. The system creates wealth disparity, there will always be poor people unless we dramatically reduce wealth disparity. Even if you accept every single meritorious or potentially, there will be other poor people to replace them... and once you shuttle the poor into the elite classes they are no longer poor, but elites.

However, racism can be theoretically alleviated by AA because preferential treatment includes people from groups not represented in the elite segments of society. They will theoretically keep their same racial identity when they enter the elite classes, so this would theoretically change the composition of the elite in a substantial way.

[I'm using the term elite to mean perceived to be elite, but w/ actual wealth and power not actually elite which refers more to virtue and responsible citizenship and leadership]

Just want to clarify: I wasn't trying to compare the way race and SS are treated under admissions. I completely understand that AA targets the group rather than the individual and I don't have a problem with that at all. I just think that when an ad com does evaluate individual merit, overcoming significant adversity should be considered for something.

[sarahlawg]

The problem is, and this is what differentiates AA from Socioeconomic status preferences...

AA focuses on fixing broad social problems. It is NOT related to individual merit. Focusing SES would not do anything to alleviate poverty, it might alleviate which specific people are poor, but not poverty. SES is concerned w/ individual merit, not broader social progress.

Poverty is a structural problem that can't possibly be fixed through preferential treatment. The system creates wealth disparity, there will always be poor people unless we dramatically reduce wealth disparity. Even if you accept every single meritorious or potentially, there will be other poor people to replace them... and once you shuttle the poor into the elite classes they are no longer poor, but elites.

However, racism can be theoretically alleviated by AA because preferential treatment includes people from groups not represented in the elite segments of society. They will theoretically keep their same racial identity when they enter the elite classes, so this would theoretically change the composition of the elite in a substantial way.

[I'm using the term elite to mean perceived to be elite, but w/ actual wealth and power not actually elite which refers more to virtue and responsible citizenship and leadership]

I disagree with this. Racism will not be alleviated by AA. Not even theoretically. It is far too institutionalized. Poverty on the other hand, could be helped in the way that higher education could actually get people out of poverty. It's a cycle, remember. Not sure that would be the point of giving low income applicants a leg up, though.
The way SES is related to race is the fact that there is a culture associated with low income and it's not as individual as people may think. People of poorer backgrounds can get together and all of a sudden see how much they have in common with each other despite where they grew up and with whom. It's not just I'm poor so I had this set of circumstances. There is an entire set of norms, expectations, values, etc that go along with it.

[Borhas]

Just want to clarify: I wasn't trying to compare the way race and SS are treated under admissions. I completely understand that AA targets the group rather than the individual and I don't have a problem with that at all. I just think that when an ad com does evaluate individual merit, overcoming significant adversity should be considered for something.

100% agree

they should either do that, or stop pretending to care about individual merit

[kapital98]

Honestly, it does really bother me that socioeconomic status doesn't hold more weight in the admissions process. I grew up in a single-parent home in Section 8 housing where drugs and alcohol played a huge role in the family dynamic. Maybe I'm just making excuses for myself, and I know that others who faced similar circumstances are a lot more successful than I am, but I do feel like working full time throughout school and taking care of my younger siblings made it a bit more difficult to focus on grades, and I damn sure never would have been able to afford something like an LSAT course. I mean, it was a struggle paying for the used prep books and the $12 LSAC fees. I'm still trying to figure out where that $500 is coming from in two weeks and I'm having a very hard time with the conventional wisdom that rank trumps scholarship money.

All of that said, I do think UCLA is one of the few schools to actually consider socioeconomic diversity. Their application has like 10 questions on family history and I don't think my #s would have gotten me in without my DS. I don't think this is the norm at other schools though.

The problem is, and this is what differentiates AA from Socioeconomic status preferences...

AA focuses on fixing broad social problems. It is NOT related to individual merit. Focusing SES would not do anything to alleviate poverty, it might alleviate which specific people are poor, but not poverty. SES is concerned w/ individual merit, not broader social progress.

Poverty is a structural problem that can't possibly be fixed through preferential treatment. The system creates wealth disparity, there will always be poor people unless we dramatically reduce wealth disparity. Even if you accept every single meritorious or potentially, there will be other poor people to replace them... and once you shuttle the poor into the elite classes they are no longer poor, but elites.

However, racism can be theoretically alleviated by AA because preferential treatment includes people from groups not represented in the elite segments of society. They will theoretically keep their same racial identity when they enter the elite classes, so this would theoretically change the composition of the elite in a substantial way.

[I'm using the term elite to mean perceived to be elite, but w/ actual wealth and power not actually elite which refers more to virtue and responsible citizenship and leadership]

I don't know how to say this without being blunt so here goes: NO!

This issue can be analyzed by either labor or welfare economics. There are positive and normative elements to giving advantages to poor people. Positive elements include externalities. Education is an investment. General education (like a BS degree or JD) will not be funded by businesses. Only individuals will pay for that (with exceptional contractual circumstances.) This means education is almost always underprovided and a deadweightloss exists. The poor do not have liquidity to invest in human capital. By having the gov't provide grants/loans to the poor they are increasing investment towards the socially optimal point (allocative efficiency/Pareto optimal.) Society as a whole is better off for supporting education of the poor.

Normative elements surround equality. This concerns the transfer of wealth rather than the creation of wealth. This concerns the notion of egalitarianism. Everyone should have the opportunity to succeed regardless of background (economic or ethnicity.) While these programs make society worse off they decrease poverty/racism/etc. You can never eliminate poverty in a market system. However, you can change the proportion of people who are poor. The Lorenz Curve or Gini Coefficient are perfect examples. The same goes for racism. You can never alleviate racism but you can significantly decrease it at the margin.

The problem is cost. The poor cannot afford to make human capital investments. The distortions made through taxes to subsidize them will recovered through postive externalities. However, the same cannot be said with the URM's. All poor are poor. A much smaller fraction of URM's are poor. Essentially, the government is subsidizing middle class URM's. However, they already possess the liquidity to invest in human capital. The positive effect is either an unnecessary deadweightloss (from taxation) without an accompanying pareto improvement or a possible market distortion that leads to decrease in social wealth.

Depending on your normative beliefs preferential treatment of URM's is still desirable. However, it will cost far more with less effect than targeting the poor (of which hispanic and black ethnicities are the majority.)

---

(I'm sorry to get confrontational. This thread has been quite pleasant and this is NOT an argument against URM treatment. It's just a look at the positive economic impacts of policy.)

[nodummy]

I'm unemployed...so no income. Do I count?

[kapital98]

I'm unemployed...so no income. Do I count?

[Borhas]

Honestly, it does really bother me that socioeconomic status doesn't hold more weight in the admissions process. I grew up in a single-parent home in Section 8 housing where drugs and alcohol played a huge role in the family dynamic. Maybe I'm just making excuses for myself, and I know that others who faced similar circumstances are a lot more successful than I am, but I do feel like working full time throughout school and taking care of my younger siblings made it a bit more difficult to focus on grades, and I damn sure never would have been able to afford something like an LSAT course. I mean, it was a struggle paying for the used prep books and the $12 LSAC fees. I'm still trying to figure out where that $500 is coming from in two weeks and I'm having a very hard time with the conventional wisdom that rank trumps scholarship money.

All of that said, I do think UCLA is one of the few schools to actually consider socioeconomic diversity. Their application has like 10 questions on family history and I don't think my #s would have gotten me in without my DS. I don't think this is the norm at other schools though.

The problem is, and this is what differentiates AA from Socioeconomic status preferences...

AA focuses on fixing broad social problems. It is NOT related to individual merit. Focusing SES would not do anything to alleviate poverty, it might alleviate which specific people are poor, but not poverty. SES is concerned w/ individual merit, not broader social progress.

Poverty is a structural problem that can't possibly be fixed through preferential treatment. The system creates wealth disparity, there will always be poor people unless we dramatically reduce wealth disparity. Even if you accept every single meritorious or potentially, there will be other poor people to replace them... and once you shuttle the poor into the elite classes they are no longer poor, but elites.

However, racism can be theoretically alleviated by AA because preferential treatment includes people from groups not represented in the elite segments of society. They will theoretically keep their same racial identity when they enter the elite classes, so this would theoretically change the composition of the elite in a substantial way.

[I'm using the term elite to mean perceived to be elite, but w/ actual wealth and power not actually elite which refers more to virtue and responsible citizenship and leadership]

I don't know how to say this without being blunt so here goes: NO!

This issue can be analyzed by either labor or welfare economics. There are positive and normative elements to giving advantages to poor people. Positive elements include externalities. Education is an investment. General education (like a BS degree or JD) will not be funded by businesses. Only individuals will pay for that (with exceptional contractual circumstances.) This means education is almost always underprovided and a deadweightloss exists. The poor do not have liquidity to invest in human capital. By having the gov't provide grants/loans to the poor they are increasing investment towards the socially optimal point (allocative efficiency/Pareto optimal.) Society as a whole is better off for supporting education of the poor.

Normative elements surround equality. This concerns the transfer of wealth rather than the creation of wealth. This concerns the notion of egalitarianism. Everyone should have the opportunity to succeed regardless of background (economic or ethnicity.) While these programs make society worse off they decrease poverty/racism/etc. You can never eliminate poverty in a market system. However, you can change the proportion of people who are poor. The Lorenz Curve or Gini Coefficient are perfect examples. The same goes for racism. You can never alleviate racism but you can significantly decrease it at the margin.

The problem is cost. The poor cannot afford to make human capital investments. The distortions made through taxes to subsidize them will recovered through postive externalities. However, the same cannot be said with the URM's. All poor are poor. A much smaller fraction of URM's are poor. Essentially, the government is subsidizing middle class URM's. However, they already possess the liquidity to invest in human capital. The positive effect is either an unnecessary deadweightloss (from taxation) without an accompanying pareto improvement or a possible market distortion that leads to decrease in social wealth.

Depending on your normative beliefs preferential treatment of URM's is still desirable. However, it will cost far more with less effect than targeting the poor (of which hispanic and black ethnicities are the majority.)

---

(I'm sorry to get confrontational. This thread has been quite pleasant and this is NOT an argument against URM treatment. It's just a look at the positive economic impacts of policy.)

I don't think you are being confrontation...

well, because I'm not really sure what you actually disagree with... care to specify?

[kapital98]

*Correct me if I misunderstand your argument*

Your analyzing preferential treatment based on cultural factors.

The % of poor people does not change but the composition of the poor does. If a poor person become rich they will no longer have the values of the poor.

The % of racism can be changed through preferential treatment because their distinguishing factor (ethnicity) is a physical feature. As individuals succeed
this will slowly change the way others think about the minority. This will have an indirect effect on everyone else of that ethnicity.

Finally, you make an important qualifier on success -- in this case the word 'elite'

----

I firmly disagree with your analysis because I think it misses the whole point.

First, it's a static interpretation of poverty and class size. This ignores the 'positive' (i.e. quantifiably measurable statistics like GDP, employment, etc). If it wasn't for the 'positive' pareto improving characteristics of publicly subsidized education (i.e society as a whole is better off even if they pay a little up front) pell grants, stafford loans, etc probably wouldn't exist. Though it looks like the rich are giving to the poor it's really the rich giving to the poor and BOTH SIDES making more money in the end. That's a highly oversimplified/drastic explanation but it's a vital component of why gov't helps poor with education.

Second, it ignores what options cost more and who benefits. To put it in an analogy: State gov'ts normally charge a very low level of tuition. This is meant to increase education (and the increase the wealth of society.) However, the low tuition represents a subsidy. This subsidy is critical for poor people because they could not afford education otherwise. However, middle and upper class people could afford the true cost of education. The marginal willingness (likelihood) of the middle/upper class to go to college is very high. They would go even if the price was 2-3x the tuition cost (as it is with private universities.) There is no reason they should be subsidized from a positive perspective (society is worse off in terms of GDP.) You could more effectively target the poor by increasing financial aid and raising tuition. Society would be clearly better off from a wealth perspective. However, the middle class has an economic rent (they receive more than is efficient) and will strongly guard it.

This is a primary reason why it is so difficult for states to increase tuition. The vast majority of people who benefit from low tuition are the middle class -- the people who do not theoretically need it. However, to them an increase in societal wealth will come at the cost of their own personal wealth.

The same can be said for URM's compared with low-income students. URM's are more likely to be poor than the rest of society. This provides them at a severe disadvantage and contributes to further poverty and racism. However, it doesn't make economic sense to target all URM's. You're subsidizing a significant portion of people who don't need the subsidies and may actually make society worse off because it artificially makes the cost of education lower (creating inefficiencies.)

From a positive standpoint it would cost less and help all of the "non-elites" if you target just poor people. All of the URM's that need help would be covered and all the poor would be covered. If you wanted to be more restrictive you could cover only the URM's that are poor (which would be a far superior system than we currently have.)

The important thing is to think about costs versus benefits of each policy action. Positive economics can only say what will happen. Normative economics is "what should be." However, there are many times when "what should be" can never happen. In this case you search for the next best policy.

Summary: Focusing only on URM's essentially benefits the middle/upper class URM's at the cost of society. Affirmative action policies can be used to target URM's, and racism, in a more efficient manner.


(I'm trying to prevent this from becoming an AA debate. Economics is merely a tool to analyze what will happen -- not necessarily what should happen.)

Does this help? Or should I just drop the conversation?

[Moxie]

The worst part is that I'm a white male (in case the trailer park thing didn't give that away). No diversity honors programs, no special scholarships, no URM boost. Most of the AAs I've seen participate in this kind of stuff come from middle class suburban backgrounds, and yes, it does make me a little bitter. But I don't want this to turn into any sort of AA debate.

Highly doubt it with that last statement.

A few thoughts:
1) There are plenty of ways you can benefit from growing up poor, even as a white person. One friend in LS with me is a white guy from WV, who came from a similar background. Got into HYS with both numbers below 25th, because he had a compelling story. Was he an outlier? Yes, but it's possible, and he didn't have a problem with asking for whatever help he could get. Now he's got a kickass summer job. Diversity statements can be game-changers.

2) The bolded. But seriously, can this be one thread on economic inequities that doesn't become an AA debate.

3) Anecdotal - I had some luck discussing my financial situation with a local law firm in my hometown, who offered to compensate me money to buy law school prep books, etc. Granted, I knew an attorney there, but legal services sometimes offer unexpected resources.

[r6_philly]

A few thoughts:
1) There are plenty of ways you can benefit from growing up poor, even as a white person. One friend in LS with me is a white guy from WV, who came from a similar background. Got into HYS with both numbers below 25th, because he had a compelling story. Was he an outlier? Yes, but it's possible, and he didn't have a problem with asking for whatever help he could get. Now he's got a kickass summer job. Diversity statements can be game-changers.

I guess it doesn't pay to be Asian?

(it's a joke don't take it seriously)

[Moxie]

Don't worry, I laughed

Good luck on your cycle, you've already got some great options, and I have a good feeling about Harvard/Stanford.

[tooswolle]

All I can say to all of you including myself is that we should be damn proud of our accomplishments to see where we are and from where we came from. Law schools may have their indexes but anyone who made it from the "streets" impoverished has what it takes to succeed in law school. I wish you all luck when you start law school and just a reminder to not forget where you come from. I know I won't! Keep it up you guys.

[LAWLAW09]

Race (still) matters.

And, the consequences that result when we convince ourselves that it doesn't (to the degree that it does), unfortunately, are not limited to the contexts of jury selection or the criminal justice system.

http://eji.org/eji/files/EJI%20Race%20a ... Report.pdf


Good luck to all who desire a more fair legal/American experience.

[kapital98]

All I can say to all of you including myself is that we should be damn proud of our accomplishments to see where we are and from where we came from. Law schools may have their indexes but anyone who made it from the "streets" impoverished has what it takes to succeed in law school. I wish you all luck when you start law school and just a reminder to not forget where you come from. I know I won't! Keep it up you guys.

Exactly

@LAWLAW09: Race does matter (I skimmed through the executive summary.) If I get the chance to go Howard University (which I'm going to apply to again with my higher LSAT score) I'll probably be arguing for some form of AA until I'm blue in the face

[fatduck]

correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

[firemed]

Can we not discuss AA? It almost never goes anywhere good... some troll will come in and get this thread locked if we don't drop it.


On another note: I grew up rich until high school... when I suddenly found myself using food stamps and living in the basement of a crappy house with no air conditioning (we did have heat at least). My first two years of college I frequently found myself sleeping using a rug as a blanket in an apartment a friend of mine had appropriated from the coke head who spent some time in jail/prison. I considered a packet of ramen and some mustard a great meal... and had no idea how much of a pain in the ass those loans to pay for the ramen would be later.

Now I am middle class. Lower middle class, but VERY HAPPY to be where I am.

I have been rich, and I have been poor... and I prefer being rich, I must say. The contacts I had (and pissed away) would have been invaluable. The college fund I would have had would have been invaluable. Oh well. Thanks to going to college I now have some of the contacts again, and that is nice. I am also (thanks to having grown up in that environment) aware of a lot of opportunities that I think people growing up poor frequently don't learn about, unfortunately. Anyway... my 2 cents.


ETA: and of course, all the adversity I think made me a better person... living in low income housing and bumming rides teaches a man something about humility, I think.

[TheStrand]

The college fund I would have had would have been invaluable.

I really don't understand college funds. Why do most people feel entitled to this? If you're going to college you're probably around 18, you should have been working for about two years, and you should take financial responsibility for yourself especially since you're going to reap the benefit of better career opportunities. Why is it the parents' responsibility to make sure the kid gets this paid for? I'm always readings these things about how terrible the economy is that parents can't pay for their kids' college and the kid drops out (loans??). Or how high income people feel like they're struggling because their kids go to expensive colleges. I honestly don't mean this in a combative way, I just really don't understand why it's expected that a "good" parent would pay for this. Or to a lesser extent, why parents pay for their kids' JDs or other graduate level studies on top of this.

[firemed]

The college fund I would have had would have been invaluable.

I really don't understand college funds. Why do most people feel entitled to this? If you're going to college you're probably around 18, you should have been working for about two years, and you should take financial responsibility for yourself especially since you're going to reap the benefit of better career opportunities. Why is it the parents' responsibility to make sure the kid gets this paid for? I'm always readings these things about how terrible the economy is that parents can't pay for their kids' college and the kid drops out (loans??). Or how high income people feel like they're struggling because their kids go to expensive colleges. I honestly don't mean this in a combative way, I just really don't understand why it's expected that a "good" parent would pay for this. Or to a lesser extent, why parents pay for their kids' JDs or other graduate level studies on top of this.

I think a good parent would offer this if they can (I know a lot can't). If you want your kid to have a good life, then not having them graduate UG with $40k-100k in debt strikes me as a good start. I have money set aside for my kiddo. I don't want her to have to work her way through college like I did. I certainly messed up my grades that I did. Also, have you tried to save enough money working part time in HS to pay for college? I had enough saved up to pay for only one semester at the end. Minimum wage blows.

I don't think it is an entitlement... but it would have been nice if I had gotten it instead of watching it get pissed away.

[kapital98]

correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

That's one part of AA. But, to answer your question:

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _20051012/

Yes, poverty significantly influences academic performance. The people on this thread are the exception to the rule.

[aliarrow]

correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the primary purpose of AA was to correct imbalances in standardized test performance (and i assume academic performance in general). do studies show that SES students are similarly disadvantaged?

That's one part of AA. But, to answer your question:

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/e ... _20051012/

Yes, poverty significantly influences academic performance. The people on this thread are the exception to the rule.

I mean, having grown up around poor people, I can say the vast majority do seem genuinely stupid. And I don't mean in a way that can really be fixed with greater access to educational opportunities, it just seems like a much more stable trait innate within them that prevents them from moving beyond poverty (they also do have very violent tempraments, quick to react, etc). So I guess a blind AA type program for the poor would be ineffective, however there should definitely be more of an effort to identify the outliers and individuals who are poor merely by circumstance. But then again, those of us who fit that description already seem to be doing fine and making the opportunities for ourselves anyways. So I guess the system works?
I know this actually sounds very anti-poor - my ideology is social democracy all the way. I feel we should all have equal opportunities at life (equal access to universal healthcare, universal college education, etc). I'm not really sure what it is I'm getting at, it's 12:30 am and this is just random stuff I was thinking of in bed.

[firemed]

I mean, having grown up around poor people, I can say the vast majority do seem genuinely stupid. And I don't mean in a way that can really be fixed with greater access to educational opportunities, it just seems like a much more stable trait innate within them that prevents them from moving beyond poverty (they also do have very violent tempraments, quick to react, etc). So I guess a blind AA type program for the poor would be ineffective, however there should definitely be more of an effort to identify the outliers and individuals who are poor merely by circumstance. But then again, those of us who fit that description already seem to be doing fine and making the opportunities for ourselves anyways. So I guess the system works?
I know this actually sounds very anti-poor - my ideology is social democracy all the way. I feel we should all have equal opportunities at life (equal access to universal healthcare, universal college education, etc). I'm not really sure what it is I'm getting at, it's 12:30 am and this is just random stuff I was thinking of in bed.

I have rarely read more ignorant words on TLS. Take a sociology class.


ETA: and the vast majority of all people are genuinely stupid. Recall that HALF of all people get below a 105 on an IQ test.

[sarahlawg]

I can say the vast majority do seem genuinely stupid. And I don't mean in a way that can really be fixed with greater access to educational opportunities, it just seems like a much more stable trait innate within them that prevents them from moving beyond poverty (they also do have very violent tempraments, quick to react, etc). So I guess a blind AA type program for the poor would be ineffective, however there should definitely be more of an effort to identify the outliers and individuals who are poor merely by circumstance. But then again, those of us who fit that description already seem to be doing fine and making the opportunities for ourselves anyways. So I guess the system works?
I know this actually sounds very anti-poor - my ideology is social democracy all the way. I feel we should all have equal opportunities at life (equal access to universal healthcare, universal college education, etc). I'm not really sure what it is I'm getting at, it's 12:30 am and this is just random stuff I was thinking of in bed.

[aliarrow]

Maybe I was wrong, I looked it up and it seems like the research doesn't really support less intelligence in lower incomes.
I've had bad experiences and always found one of the worst parts about being poor to be the other people (try working at Walmart or any fast food chain and you'll hopefully have some understanding), but maybe it isn't entirely due to innate differences?
Sorry if I offended...

[Borhas]

the biggest difference between the affluent and the poor is that the affluent can get away with being stupid... if you are stupid and poor, well you are just SOL. Of course, environmental factors like poor diet, poor parenting during developmental periods can also lead to decreased mental function, and of course so does substance abuse...

pretty bad cycle, poverty sucks

but legit poverty is not something I've ever really experienced. I mean I've always had food, a decent upbringing, parents never abused drugs, etc... There's a really big opportunity gap between people that are in poverty, and people that grew up in "working class" families. Actual poverty consumes most people it touches, even if they would have otherwise been good productive people in another environment.

[aliarrow]

the biggest difference between the affluent and the poor is that the affluent can get away with being stupid... if you are stupid and poor, well you are just SOL. Of course, environmental factors like poor diet, poor parenting during developmental periods can also lead to decreased mental function, and of course so does substance abuse...

pretty bad cycle, poverty sucks

but legit poverty is not something I've ever really experienced. I mean I've always had food, a decent upbringing, parents never abused drugs, etc... There's a really big opportunity gap between people that are in poverty, and people that grew up in "working class" families. Actual poverty consumes most people it touches, even if they would have otherwise been good productive people in another environment.

This thread makes me want to rent Trading Places.

And I agree, it's much harder to detect stupidity when it's veiled by at least proper english and mannerisms provided by the upper middle class environment.