Quote:
I'm not well-versed in prep schools. But I have been a product private schools. I know the difference in the level or education and preparation (rigors of the programs etc).That doesn't change my point. I don't have the data here, but I'm asserting that if we took all the nation's SAT scores over 1500 and got the percentage of kids from public school versus the percentage from private schools we'd find that the those percentages would favor the public schools by more than their Ivy League admissions percentages. Ergo, the private school kids would be found to be getting an advantage for similar performance.
Quote:
And yes, anyone who invests any money as a client of anything has a right to have opinions on that investment. Thats the best part about logic, it transcends all things such as cost and class etc. I could easily make an argument that people who are upset about their starbucks order have a right because they are paying through the nose for what I think is mediocre coffee. Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who can't afford starbucks. So do we say they (starbucks clients) are not allowed to have gripes because there are others who can't afford overpriced coffee that can be gotten for much, much less, or made at home?
This misses the point. Starbucks is a terrible analogy for this situation. Coffee is an end in itself. If it tastes good -- great! Private school, more often than not, is a means to an end. They are selling potential access to status and power. If the private school is reacting to biases from the elite Universities, it is just to maintain its position in the minds of those gatekeepers. The parents are essentially asking the private school to weaken its status in the eyes of the woke Ivy League by removing these programs. That's a tough sell as it is counterproductive to an important aspect of the private school's product.