|
My own response to the callous
Be careful, my own little rant.
Meritocracy - the belief that one's success is determined by the strength of their merits (i.e. success is only a matter of how hard you try).
An example to think about in reading the above statement.
In Los Angeles in the 1950s, all the jobs were in downtown and so were the homes of the richest people in LA. At the time, lobbyists from car , oil, and tire companies were upset, that in the early 1950s, the nation as a whole, but specifically LA with its thriving red car trolley system, were turning to cheaper and less industry friendly forms of public transportation. So, in response, these lobbyists pressured officials in LA (and to a lesser extent in places like Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago) to abandon funding for public transportation (specifically LA's red car), but instead invest in highways...highways, which as the only means of access to the central parts of LA which carried all the jobs, would force anyone who didn't live near these said desired areas(the poor) to buy cars, tires, and of course, oil (gas). This trend continued for 20 to 30 years until the late 70's and mid-80s when large cities, because of population density, the oil scare, and traffic cocerns reinvested in public transportation.
Some questions to think about:
- Who do politicians listen to, the rich or the poor? Do most politicians come from wealth or poverty, and in any case, where do they get their constituency from (campaign funding)?
- If you have no money and have become reliant on public transportation, can you afford a car (tires, gas, etc., remember cars were much less affordable back then too)? Were the rich whose homes were located in these areas happy about the poor having such easy access?
- Even if you are educated, if you have no means of getting to a job every day, could you get the job or keep it? Do you think the nepotism-centered rich wanted to help these potential competitors for said lucrative jobs?
Now think of the result in present day.
Next, you're somewhat limited but most people would say all you have to do is educate yourself and opportunities come your way. Ok, let's look at the educational system in the US.
In California, like many other states, a public school district's funding is based on the taxes paid by those who live in that district (i.e. a school will get more money if the school is located in a rich area, and less money if located in a poor area). Think about what more money means to a school versus less.
More Money:
1) New and up to date books (better classes and more prepared for college courses)
2) Educational resources (such as computers) and better facilities (installs a feeling of hope and enjoyment in an educational environment).
3) More teachers who are also better paid, thus smaller class sizes (more personal attention and a more innovative/motivated level of instruction).
4) Overall environment of success (College is not an option, it is a requirement. This is simply due to available resources, good teachers telling you have to go, and peer pressure).
Less Money:
1) Out of date text books (likely no AP classes and therefore, no AP tests...even the advance classes might not compare to other schools).
2) Worse facilities (contributes to apathy and depression of current circumstances they might find themselves in) and lack of educational resources (these kids, unlike the ones above, probably don't have computers at home and the ones at school are either out of date or non-existent).
3) Less teachers who are also underpaid and larger class sizes (teachers with less experience tend to initially go to the worse schools because they are less in demand), thus less personal attention (fits right into NO Child Left Behind, because it is easier to teach someone to pass a test than it is to teach someone life skills and how to learn, i.e. a worse education with the only goal being to superficially boost graduation rates).
4) Overall environment of failure (generally, because of the limited resources, many child do not see the value of high school, but see it simply as a way to prolong childhood knowing there is nothing better for them once the graduate or simply a waste of time when the jobs they might look for would be illegal as a way of making quick money to afford the things MTV tells them they have to have. Many aren't aware college is an option, or even if aware of it, don't think there was any way they could get in or even how to do so).
What four-year universities look for:
- High GPA (likely above a 4.0, which can only be achieved through AP classes which many poor high schools do not have)
- Extra curricular activities (many times these are afforded by the school itself, a poor school would not offer as many...even if they did, many kids in poorer areas must work to help their families, meaning no time for such activities)
- High SAT scores: The SAT combines applied knowledge with analytical thinking, which can only be taught....when you are taught only to pass a test (such as in No Child Left Behind), you don't learn the knowledge nor how to do proper inner analysis. NCLB often does not apply in wealthier schools simply because their graduation rates and pass rates have always been good.
- The school itself: Many do not realize colleges have set up a ranking system for school districts and often grades candidates based on the competition at their high school. For example, if you go to a good school where more is demanded of you, a college might see a 3.5 GPA as a relative 4.0. However, if you go to a bad school, a college might see a 4.0 GPA as a relative 3.0 compared to the better schools.
The above is simply one scenario of millions, so think about it and figure it out for yourself what implications only this one scenario has on meritocracy, class struggle, and the position many of those in Katrina found themselves in.
|