It’s no secret that lower-class students, primarily students of color, are at a disadvantage in today’s cutthroat academic world. Thus, it makes sense that programs and initiatives such as Affirmative Action, additional funding, even magnet schools have been set up in an attempt to even the playing field between lower and higher income students. While higher income students may cite their natural intelligence and hard work as the cause of their advantage, lower-class students recognize that there are still many other circumstances and environmental forces at play in this vast disparity (Hutson). Without these additional programs, students coming from lower income schools are hindered when applying to colleges against students who have been
…show more content…
If this were the complete truth, then there would be no use for attempts to establish a strong middle class or improve, or even fund, education in lower income areas, but there is. And even if wealth was more equally distributed and education in these areas was on par with more prestigious schools, it still doesn’t address prejudices towards minority students. In Matthew Hutson’s article “Social Darwinism Isn’t Dead”, Hutson says that it isn’t that the less fortunate are less “fit” to succeed than the wealthy, but the perspective of the wealthy is to believe that they deserve to have what they do because they are somehow innately better or smarter. Therefore, Affirmative Action is justified in assuming that low-income students are equally capable, even if they have not been challenged in previous years as much as others. In addition, in today’s age there are very few high-paying, secure jobs that do not require at least an undergraduate degree. Without Affirmative Action, the system would then select the wealthiest of the applicants to get the best degrees at the best schools and later have the bests jobs and the best companies and have the best, or most “successful”, life. In this model, the cycle is endless and continually excludes those from less fortunate backgrounds, no matter their
If this were the complete truth, then there would be no use for attempts to establish a strong middle class or improve, or even fund, education in lower income areas, but there is. And even if wealth was more equally distributed and education in these areas was on par with more prestigious schools, it still doesn’t address prejudices towards minority students. In Matthew Hutson’s article “Social Darwinism Isn’t Dead”, Hutson says that it isn’t that the less fortunate are less “fit” to succeed than the wealthy, but the perspective of the wealthy is to believe that they deserve to have what they do because they are somehow innately better or smarter. Therefore, Affirmative Action is justified in assuming that low-income students are equally capable, even if they have not been challenged in previous years as much as others. In addition, in today’s age there are very few high-paying, secure jobs that do not require at least an undergraduate degree. Without Affirmative Action, the system would then select the wealthiest of the applicants to get the best degrees at the best schools and later have the bests jobs and the best companies and have the best, or most “successful”, life. In this model, the cycle is endless and continually excludes those from less fortunate backgrounds, no matter their