The stark divide in the quality of education cannot be so easily solved with minor tweaks or small interventions.
The United States has a large divide between the rich and the poor that has been most apparently known and recorded since the Gilded Age (1870s — 1890s), the period of the most extreme wealth inequality in the country’s history until today.
Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. showcased this stark divide in his 1967 speech, “The Other America.” Dr. King pointed out America’s hypocrisy and social failings, where one side is prosperous and full of opportunity and gets to live in the fruits of its labor, and the other is condemned by poverty and struggles to make ends meet in what’s considered the wealthiest nation in the world.
Today is reminiscent of the extreme inequality of the Gilded Age where the gap between the 1% or 0.01% and everyone else is enormous. This may explain the phenomena of the extreme left and right-wing ideology, much of the social unrest, and the political divide we find ourselves in the US, plus the resentment and discontent harbored amongst most of the working poor living paycheck to paycheck and hardly able to get by.
This wealth gap or social inequality, whatever you want to call it, as well as the disconnect between the rich and the poor, could be attributed to a number of factors. Social inequality and even inequity are symptoms of the American system, and thus the root cause has to be discovered and explained with facts or empirical evidence.
The main factor that I would attribute as the main culprit is essentially a self-serving or reinforcing mechanism: Most children grow up to be the byproduct of their environment and social conditions — from their parents and the educational system that trains them to succeed.
Hence why I‘m a strong believer that nurture, not nature (i.e. genetics), is the most dominant factor, if not the only factor that determines a child’s future to become successful. Although there is a strong argument to be made that it is a blend of the two concepts. Of course, I’m fully aware there are exceptions to the rule, such as the rags-to-riches stories that like 1 out 1000 people (made up number) who grew up poor accomplished. However, it could be assumed that most children living in poverty are not always able to push through the systemic barriers or the social conditions they are under that would help them succeed if we define “success” as the ability to pursue their dreams or what others perceive to be someone successful.
Horace Mann’s vision of public education as ‘the great equalizer’ remains a worthy ideal, but in practice, it has been far outpaced by ‘the great accelerator’ of elite private education. Under the current social conditions and systemic apparatus in the US, private schools will often supersede public education in terms of student outcomes for numerous reasons that I won’t go into depth about since that is not my area of expertise.
I don’t believe it is entirely because private institutions are always better or efficiently run, and faster to adapt than public institutions as many capitalists would believe, but that certainly could play a major role. We can’t entirely lay the blame on the government for the lack of quality in education or student outcomes in public schools. Some policies have been enacted by the government that have contributed to terrible unintended consequences on public education. But I’m sure there are positive ones that people can point to as well. I’m certain that under the right conditions, with the right teachers and so forth, students in public schools can thrive just as well if not better than their counterparts.
I think most people would agree that education is probably the most important ingredient in determining someone’s future success. Hence why there is a great emphasis and discussion to continue funding and improving the schools in the nation. Here are some shocking statistics: On average, 79% of U.S. adults nationwide are literate in 2024. 21% of adults in the US are illiterate in 2024. 54% of adults have a literacy below a 6th-grade level (20% are below 5th-grade level). Low levels of literacy costs the US up to 2.2 trillion per year. Another source stated, “The average American reads at the 7th- to 8th-grade level.”
As you probably guessed, the numeracy or math level for Americans is worse than their literacy level, and the pandemic has only exacerbated these numbers with many students showcasing this reality due to fallen behind in their studies.
Notwithstanding, the system in the US was not intentionally rigged or designed to ensure that elite children have a higher success rate compared to poorer children. Putting aside the powerful racial/ethnic and gender barriers that America has intentionally put in place to suppress and dehumanize others; the country has naturally and gradually evolved into such an economic class system that creates these two dividing Americas — between the haves and have-nots. It is the result of a gradual evolution of class structure in America, where opportunities and resources tend to become consolidated and concentrated at the top of the social hierarchy.
You have the lower class of society who have endure often the lowest common denominator or average quality of education because of the ideal vision of ‘the great equalizer’ of public education. Meanwhile, the elite class aren’t condemned by the same fate. They are insulated from this condemnation by attending elite schools, prep schools, or boarding schools that essentially accelerate their education. This is not to say that Horace Mann’s vision isn’t worth keeping or an ideal worth pursuing. But his ideal is nearly impossible to accomplish when you essentially have a two-tiered system that perpetuates the social divide. This loophole has crippled what Mann’s originally envisioned.
The American system reveals the stark differences in the quality of education disseminated among students from the two distinct classes. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say there are only two classes to borrow from Marxists — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
The environment (i.e. social conditions) of elite children produced by their bourgeois parents keeps them insulated or protected so they can obtain various skills, pursue their talents, and often focus on their passion without worrying about any financial struggle.
One can argue that relatively or objectively higher quality education tends to be exclusively hoarded and reserved for and by the elites when they send their kids to boarding schools or private schools since they can afford it. Their kids may even get extra tutoring when struggling in their academics. Elite private schools often provide smaller class sizes, better resources, and individualized attention, which can enhance academic and social outcomes.
Privileged children often benefit from educated, financially stable parents who provide them with resources and opportunities unavailable to less fortunate peers. These sorts of kids are more likely to do a ton of extracurricular activities and participate in the arts for cultural nourishment that expands their taste and imagination. Not to mention, these elite kids are most likely well-dressed, well-read, well-spoken, and well-fed as a basic head-start compared to the less fortunate who may lack in these areas.
Afterward, upon finishing primary school, these elite students are presumably ready to apply and likely be accepted to elite institutions also known as Ivy League universities like Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, and Yale that only accept an extremely tiny percentage of students. In other words, the best that the country, and the world for that matter, have to offer. It is gatekeeping and opportunity hoarding at its finest, and yet they have every legal right under the legal framework of the nation to do as they please or see fit as privately run institutions.
Meanwhile, lower quality education, for the most part relatively speaking, is perpetuated for everyone else — the proletariat, the middle, and lower class, or the 99%. Am I class-conscious? I feel like I always was. It’s a term I hear so much nowadays due to the UnitedHealthcare incident.
Back to the subject. Our educational system doesn’t always necessarily create winners and losers. Perhaps I have a blind spot and there could certainly be an argument there. You could probably count those who drop out of school of losers if they were not able to progress or find a better option.
Public schools aim to provide equal opportunities, but funding disparities, teacher shortages, and other systemic challenges can hinder this goal. I know other factors played a role in why American public schools failed, like demographic shifts or when white flight unintentionally caused a funding gap for public schools in urban areas for low-income families because the wealth was gone with them to the suburbs. Federal funding was introduced to help close the gap for underfunded state-level schools, but its impact was limited by budget constraints and significant cuts during certain administrations, such as Ronald Reagan’s.
In my view, in some of the best circumstances, the current system creates winners and ultra-winners. The ultra winners are the elite students who are accepted into Ivy League universities, who mingle and form relationships or connections with other elites and are trained by elite staff from the institution itself creating ample opportunity to become the best version of themselves. By attending these schools, these elite students have diversified and compounded their elite education and formed powerful social networks.
Having access to this elite network is vastly superior to other lesser-resourced schools. Post-higher ed, these elite students end up making career choices that fit their skillsets, which usually means taking seats of power, whether in politics or business. Essentially, these elite institutions are a conduit for creating and maintaining the network and passing down generationally the elite’s power in society.
To emphasize this major point again, there are always exceptions to the rule and success stories outside of elitism from those who came from nothing and became successful whether through creating a business of their own or by achieving success through academia. A side note, usually those who come from nothing have more humility compared to privileged kids if and when each of them climbs the invisible and made-up social ladder.
The phrase “Masters of the Universe” comes from Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities (1987), describing Wall Street traders who saw themselves as powerful and untouchable. It symbolizes the hubris and dominance of elites in finance, politics, and business. Over time, it’s been used both critically and ironically to highlight the immense influence of these individuals.
It is no secret that many of the elite schools in this nation are prime hubs for job recruiters of big businesses, especially financial careers in Wall Street where they can make the big bucks and live lavishly and luxuriously. There is some degree of brain drain where the smart students end up working at financial firms to trade for a living to enrich clients and themselves. This increases the compounding effect of elite hoard-ization.
In contrast with those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy, they have a slow slope of success or a completely flat chart — meaning stagnant by not making much progress in economic terms. This may stem from personal circumstances or systemic barriers beyond their control. Just merely the circumstances of their life, such as a surprising medical issue that hindered their progress or even bankrupted them.
I’m not sure if it was the Economist Thomas Sowell who said something to the effect that if we allowed everyone access to higher education, it would cheapen its value. This may be true because we can imagine an extreme scenario where a vast quantity of students allowed into the school may have diminishing returns for the professors to teach every one of them effectively with a high-quality education. But this scenario is countered because spaces are limited already, and schools will place a space limit on the number of students enrolled.
Another scenario is lowering SAT scores, or eliminating the SATs, which has been commonly used in the past decades to determine whether a student will be accepted into one of those high-competing Ivy League Schools. Indeed, doing away with this academic measurement or lowering this standard would result in lower quality of students that would enroll in these top-tier universities, and thus it would ironically “cheapen” the quality of these institutions, therefore they would not find this scenario desirable for the reputation of their institution.
Thomas Sowell also makes a good point in that students who do meet these standards to apply for higher education in top-tiered schools, are better prepared and capable of persisting through the academic rigor, and thus a greater possibility for them to graduate compared to someone who struggled to achieve high results in their SATs or barely graduated high school. This would allow the educational institutions with a lower barrier of entry like community colleges or lesser well-known 4-year colleges and universities to meet the needs (demands) of students with less intellect per se, which are usually students who come from poorer backgrounds.
Touché. I wouldn’t want this to be a reoccurring theme where students apply to a school beyond their capabilities, that would be an extreme hurdle for them due to high academic rigor and thus become a waste of time for them and staff, and a waste of taxpayer’s money.
From an economist standpoint like Thomas Sowell, the system is fine the way it is. But from my point of view, the system could be far better and more equitable.
It appears that these elite universities are using a cheat code by limiting the student acceptance rate to extremely low numbers like single digits (limiting supply), to ensure they get the brightest and best students from across the nation and world.
Further thoughts:
It’s a sobering reality that our economic systems naturally stratify people to sustain businesses, perpetuating a divide between the haves” and the “have-nots.”
The “have-nots are often priced out of access to the highest quality goods and services, leaving them to settle for cheaper, less reliable options. Meanwhile, the “haves,” with their financial advantage, can afford superior quality, which often provides them with further advantages in life.
This pattern of inequality extends beyond education, manifesting across various sectors of society. For example, OpenAI has different price options for their popular product ChatGPT. Those who can afford the $200/month price option will have a superior product compared to those who are forced to pay the cheaper option or none at all. Interesting indeed.
This dynamic is visible across countless facets of society: in housing, where wealthier individuals secure homes in safer neighborhoods with better schools; in air travel, where first-class passengers enjoy the comfort and privileges inaccessible to those in the economy or business class; or in entertainment, where premium concert tickets offer the best views and experiences, leaving others with limited options; and in food, where those with financial constraints often opt to choose the cheaper option like fast-food, rather than a high-quality nutritional meal.
This cycle creates self-reinforcing inequalities. Those with access to higher-quality resources tend to maintain or expand their advantages, while those stuck with lower-quality options face additional barriers that limit their upward mobility.
We design systems that inherently favor some over others, yet we act surprised when unequal opportunities lead to unequal outcomes or when tons of people or the “lost Einsteins” are left behind, hidden in plain sight, and not given the ability to tap into their full potential.
With that said, I’m well aware of the decisions some schools are making to reduce systemic barriers like economic or racial barriers, to make their institutions with high-quality education more accessible to the ones blocked from the access compared to folks who fall under higher income brackets by offering free tuition as well as financial aid. We can also thank the internet for providing a relatively easily accessible resource, democratizing education with the ability to take online courses or virtually attend the education (lecture) that these universities provide, albeit without much of the social or cultural capital that comes along with it by attending them.
These efforts of subsidizing higher education often make the situation worse for everyone when it is applied as a size-fit-all solution to aid the poor. While this is commendable on their part, sadly it is not sufficient to tackle the wider issues that start from childhood. Even early childhood intervention with early pre-K is not sufficient for this everlasting difficult conundrum that we find ourselves in.
Me: What was Milton Friedman’s argument on why he was against subsidizing higher education? It was something to the effect that we often subsidize those at the top rather than helping those what it was intended for.
ChatGPT:
Milton Friedman argued against subsidizing higher education primarily because he believed it often benefits wealthier individuals — those who are already more likely to attend college — rather than the less privileged, who are often the intended beneficiaries of such subsidies. His reasoning was grounded in the following points:
- Regressive Nature of Subsidies: Friedman pointed out that higher education subsidies disproportionately aid middle- and upper-class students. These individuals are more likely to attend college, meaning public funds are effectively being used to subsidize those who are already better off, rather than addressing broader societal inequalities.
- Misallocation of Resources: He believed that blanket subsidies for higher education could lead to inefficiencies, with resources being diverted to students and institutions that don’t necessarily need them, instead of targeting the truly disadvantaged.
- Opportunity Cost: Subsidizing higher education often diverts funds away from other public goods or services that could have a broader impact, such as primary or secondary education, which might provide a better return on investment for society.
- Personal Responsibility: Friedman advocated for individuals bearing more of the costs of their own higher education through mechanisms like income-contingent loans. He argued that this would incentivize students to make better choices about their education and careers, while also being fairer to taxpayers.
In essence, Friedman’s critique was that subsidies for higher education tend to serve the affluent rather than truly promoting equality or access for the disadvantaged. Instead, he preferred targeted financial aid programs that directly assist low-income students, ensuring that public funds are used more effectively to achieve equitable outcomes.
Conclusion
Finally, having the flexibility and determination to make changes, reform the educational system, and repeal harmful policies are all still possible, as well as improving local schools to meet the needs of the community that needs it the most. To address systemic inequality, we must rethink how resources are distributed from early education onward. Without targeted and widespread interventions, the divide between the ‘accelerator’ and the ‘equalizer’ will only widen.
We shouldn’t be surprised when unequal opportunities and resources that are still visible today, result in a vastly unequal society. Equality for all isn’t the end ideal outcome. But at least bridging the gap of accessibility to high-quality goods and services, and creating more equal opportunities to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Note, high-quality education based on school rankings does not necessarily correlate to a better quality of education or social life in these elite schools. There are instances of people receiving a great education in public schools despite its challenges.
The divide between the elites and everyone else is not only difficult to bridge and reduce the gap but is also fundamentally embedded in the system, designed to keep the classes separated within the current structure. While there are occasional exceptions, those rare individuals who defy the odds and rise to the top whether by starting a business venture, climbing the corporate or political ladder, or succeeding through academia or a nonprofit despite their background, these success stories are extremely uncommon, largely due to the systemic barriers that make such upward mobility so challenging.
Sources to consider:
// An interesting article on low-cost private schools in New York City. I’m focusing on NYC because it is easier to see the divide between the rich and poor and how they navigate the education system historically as well.
I asked Whitfield why his school, with a tuition of only $5,000 a year and serving a population of low-income, minority students, has been so successful. He explained: “When we’re hiring teachers, we ask them a simple question: ‘Do you like children?’ In other schools, they care about what’s best for themselves, not what’s best for the child. We focus on what’s going to be best for that particular child. Everyone in the building has this mindset, this sensitivity toward children.”
“We are grateful that Children’s Scholarship Fund can give parents the purchasing power they need to afford a tuition-based school,” said CSF’s Romfo. “However, so many more children could benefit if education dollars went to families, instead of systems, so all families could choose to customize their children’s education.”
As the appetite for greater school choice policies grows nationwide, advocates in New York are doing what they can to bring attention to the mounting demand for more learning options in their state. “Parents across the state are exercising what little educational freedom they have to give their children a better future, embracing everything from homeschooling to charter schools to creative options like microschools and education pods,” said Tim Hoefer, president and CEO of the Empire Center, which helps to support the expansion of school choice policies in New York. “It’s time for our politicians to catch up with New York families. Empowering New Yorkers to make the choices that are best for their families is just smart policy.”
// $800,000 tuition is a high price point for a private school. Exemplifying that private schools are a luxury unattainable for the working poor. Whether this separation of class is for the best is difficult to say, but easier to judge with a side-eye:
// I once wrote about John Taylor Gatto’s views who explored this topic as a long-time and highly revered public school teacher.
ChatGPT:
John Taylor Gatto, a critic of conventional schooling and advocate for self-directed education, outlined 14 principles that he believed were core to the success of elite boarding schools in creating leaders and elites. These principles, drawn from his study of institutions like Phillips Exeter Academy and Groton School, emphasize fostering critical thinking, independence, and self-reliance. Here’s the list of those principles:
- Independent Thought and Inquiry: Elite schools prioritize teaching students how to think for themselves, ask questions, and critically analyze information.
- Access to Mentors: Students are given access to adults who serve as mentors, not just authority figures. These mentors guide them through intellectual and personal growth.
- Experience in Leadership: Leadership skills are cultivated through roles in student government, clubs, and team activities.
- Hands-On Learning: Experiential learning is a priority, with students engaging in activities like labs, fieldwork, and real-world problem-solving.
- Critical Thinking over Memorization: Students are encouraged to analyze and synthesize information rather than rote memorization.
- Time Management Skills: Students learn to manage their time effectively through rigorous schedules that balance academics, extracurriculars, and personal time.
- Collaboration and Networking: Emphasis is placed on working with peers and forming networks that will benefit them later in life.
- Developing a Strong Sense of Identity: Students are encouraged to explore their talents, interests, and personal values to develop a solid sense of self.
- Understanding Power Structures: They are taught how societal and organizational power structures work and how to navigate them.
- Mastery of Communication: Public speaking, writing, and debating skills are heavily emphasized.
- Resilience and Perseverance: Students are given challenging tasks that teach them how to overcome adversity and develop grit.
- Focus on Cultural Literacy: Exposure to art, literature, music, and diverse cultures is integral to their education, broadening their worldview.
- Ethics and Morality: Students are encouraged to grapple with questions of morality and ethics, developing a sense of responsibility to society.
- Personal Responsibility: Elite schools emphasize taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions, fostering maturity and accountability.
Gatto believed these principles were largely absent in conventional public schools, which he felt focused too much on conformity and obedience. Instead, he argued, they could empower individuals to reach their full potential and lead fulfilling lives.
Update Bonus:
After watching some stories from those who attend or attended Ivy League, I’ve gained more perspective. In the same way that resources can be misallocated in economic terms, so can human capital. Meaning, that the way we have structured the education system is cencentrating highly ambitious intelligent people in the top universities. These highly selective Ivy Leagues cause a brain drain from around the nation and the world. Now, I would argue this is not an ideal conducive environment since it is not well-balanced generally speaking in terms of personality traits, personal interests, class, and more.
I wouldn’t impose DEI or any kind of policy for diversity. This requires an educational shift at the local level of different neighborhoods in the United States with less resources, investing in those communities to uplift them through childhood so that they can then funnel through various campuses around the nation and world, whether it’s an Ivy League or not, if they choose to go the Higher-ed route.
Two videos of anecdotes I sourced from the two guys who attended Ivy League schools showing that it is not all rainbow and sunshine as it may appear to be. They touch on an interesting psychological phenomenon and the never-ending sociological phenomenon of keeping up with the Joneses of social status.
This cultural obsession over “higher” education, and all the attention given to Ivy League Schools and students mostly due to their high prestige or perceived high value is toxic, as well as comparing oneself with others could be detrimental to even high achievers or high-intelligence individuals.
For example, Luigi Mangione went to an Ivy League, and people look at him and people differently merely for that fact. They perceive him to be smarter when intelligence is a dime a dozen and is not only limited to the confines of these elite schools and institutions. Indeed, I can admit they are disproportionally harboring many intelligent folks there.
Based on these Ivy League guys’ stories, it is wise to foster a balanced experience and well-roundedness in individuals and institutions. Even if we can’t help but compare ourselves with others, it is important to recognize that each person plays a special role and brings a unique perspective to the table.
It is said that experience is the greatest teacher, and the teacher of wisdom; wisdom is the highest form of intelligence. Everyone has their own unique intelligence that is not always quantifiable through testing. Each experience is important to understanding the whole.
There’s this whole concept that I find somewhat absurd of a gifted and talented program that is meant to cater to these genius kids because often they were bored or too advanced for the class that they were in. That’s understandable. It says more about the school or class than the kid more often than not. But what do you think are all of the unintended consequences of this kind of separation by creating a gifted and talented program, or when a child genius attends college at ages 12–14? I can think of several issues that could present itself. I can assure folks that most if not all kids are talented in something, or at least can be cultivated into a specific talent that they enjoy doing. We have size-fit all approach to education, and not student-centered that has sucked the curiousity out of them starting from a young age.
Social Scholarly 