Vanessa called home, looking for reassurance. Her mother had always been so supportive, but now she sounded doubtful about whether Vanessa was really qualified to succeed at an elite school like the University of Texas. “Maybe you just weren’t meant to be there,” she said. “Maybe we should have sent you to a junior college first.”
After reading the whole article, this is what really stuck with me. I just can't fathom a parent ever saying this to their child regardless of wealth or education. Why does her supportive mother suddenly undermine her at such a critical juncture?
Would the poor kids do better if only their parents consistently expected them to?
Her mother was right. Maybe weak students should -- like in CA -- go to a two year college that is a stepping stone between high school and college, with more oversight and structure; finish their gen eds; and transfer. The diploma says the same thing after 4 years.
And to be clear, it's not like Vanessa is a good student. fta:
a month into the school year, Vanessa stumbled. She failed her first test in
statistics, a prerequisite for admission to the nursing program. She was
surprised at how bad it felt. Failure was not an experience she was used to.
At Mesquite High, she never had to study for math tests; she aced them all
without really trying. (Her senior-year G.P.A. was 3.50, placing her 39th
out of 559 students in her graduating class. She got a 22 on the ACT, the
equivalent of about a 1,030 on the SAT — not stellar, but above average.)
So basically, she only got a 3.5 in hs, and never learned math particularly well. It's not exactly a surprise she struggles at a good university.
Sounds to me like it was the first time she had a reality check and she had no idea what to do about it. A GPA of 3.5 is equivalent to a middling upper-second-class degree in the UK, respectable by all accounts. This girl isn't stupid: she was inadequately prepared and inadequately counselled in the face of failure.
In her class, she was 39th out of 559. She was in the 93rd percentile of the only group she could compare herself to. Prior to college, I would say she was a phenomenal student compared to her peers.
The point of the article is that low-income kids, despite being intelligent and doing well among their peers, have a hard time transitioning to college. Universities could wash their hands of the problem and just reject the poor kids and send them to two-year universities like you suggest, but they’re trying to solve the inequality without further exacerbating our income differences.
Going to a 2-year college first and then transferring not only provides a smoother adjustment for students who might not be ready for university, it also costs a lot less and thus is more accessible to low-income students. I think it's a superior option for a lot of students, but one that universities actively discourage by heavily marketing the "4-year college experience."
I'm not sure parents are supposed to be encouraging no matter what. You are not supposed to encourage kids to waste years and get into debt if the kid can not finish.
That being said, neither mother probably can evaluate Vanessas chances correctly, one failed course is not a catastrophe. Her high school apparently suxed: "she never had to study for math tests; she aced them all without really trying." - that could not be good school. Learning how to study for math at 18 is hard if you never had to do it before. She really might need more structured support at this point.
> Her high school apparently suxed: "she never had to study for math tests; she aced them all without really trying." - that could not be good school.
Her high school was definitely awful, but that's not evidence. I never studied for math tests either. The difference here is that she aced all her math tests without knowing math.
In that case, your high school math was too easy for you too :). If you can learn it without studying, then it is too little no matter how talented you are.
>Why does her supportive mother suddenly undermine her at such a critical juncture?
I had the same reaction as you. Assuming that the mother has the best intentions for Vanessa, and that she know less of the ways of UT than Vanessa (and probably you or I), I'd hazard at the following meanings:
Maybe you just weren’t meant to be there = You have not failed (at something you were supposed to succeed). The failure was in walking down a path that does not lead to the (pre-ordained) future.
Maybe we should have sent you to a junior college first = It was my mistake to lead you down that path.
No matter how you spin it, it's not what Vanessa needed to hear. But putting your self in the shoes of someone who is trying to comfort their child, and who knows little of the university system, it seems like a natural enough reaction.
My mom, having grown up in rural Utah where she got married at 17 and never thought about going to college, had similar reactions to my educational ambitions growing up.
When I was 15, I sent an application to a prestigious summer program at Phillips Andover Academy. When I didn't hear back after a couple weeks and started to get worried (I had no idea how long applications took to process), my mom said "I didn't think you were going to get in anyway, it's alright." (I received an acceptance letter a couple weeks after that)
Similarly, we were watching Mona Lisa Smile, and I said "Oh, I think I got a brochure from Wellesley." Her immediate response was "No you didn't" I ran up to get the brochure, and she just said "Whoa, that's really weird."
She wasn't being mean, she just had a very clear distinction between "things we do" and "things other people do." It just wasn't possible, in her mind, to cross that boundary. There was just no thought in her mind that someone _she_ gave birth do could go to places or do things she only saw on TV. She wasn't trying to discourage me -- she always wanted the best for me, but there were still some things that she wasn't capable of imagining possible. If she wasn't capable of imagining that these things were possible, the best course of action was to let me down gently.
Having talked to peers with similar backgrounds, I think this is an extremely common phenomenon, and one that holds a lot of potentially-successful people back, before they ever realize they're being held back.
> I just can't fathom a parent ever saying this to their child regardless of wealth or education.
It's hard for me to imagine, too; for a long time I thought Beauty School Dropout was one of the funniest songs I'd ever heard for that reason.
However, like my sibling says, the mother is correct. This girl is quite far below a normal student at UT Austin -- it's not good for her to be in classes targeted at them, and it's not good for them to be in classes targeted at her.
I rarely down vote, but this is borderline classist. As in "screw the poor and disadvantaged, we should only support those who win, not those who can win."
I really like UT's 7% rule. You have to believe that ability is equally distributed, just not opportunity. But when you get the abled from the disadvantaged high schools, they need more tools to succeed. Frankly, I think the disadvantaged shouldn't be segregated, they should make the advantaged pair up with them for tutoring so both can learn something valuable. Maybe for those that already know how to learn, they shouldn't be graded on learning more but on learning how to help others. Now that would be an eye-opener.
Remember if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate (that's a chemistry joke).
Vanessa called home, looking for reassurance. Her mother had always been so supportive, but now she sounded doubtful about whether Vanessa was really qualified to succeed at an elite school like the University of Texas. “Maybe you just weren’t meant to be there,” she said. “Maybe we should have sent you to a junior college first.”
After reading the whole article, this is what really stuck with me. I just can't fathom a parent ever saying this to their child regardless of wealth or education. Why does her supportive mother suddenly undermine her at such a critical juncture?
Would the poor kids do better if only their parents consistently expected them to?