The Fortunate Unfortunate

January 10, 2010
By Anonymous

The Fortunate Unfortunate

Did you know that some, if not most, public school districts that contain high percentages of minority groups or descendants of low class families spend a surprising low amount of money per student? As Paul Pryse, an advocate in defense of affirmative action asks to “consider that the Milwaukee school district…annually spends $3,081 less per student” (1). Whether or not affirmative action is a righteous way to choose college or job applicants is a huge and controversial question. It is so, because affirmative action is supposed to promote equal opportunity for all ethnicities and sexes without penetrating the sensitive topic of racial and/or sexual discrimination. So, is it right for colleges, businesses, and even the United States Military to use affirmative action? Maybe it is not race that should be the final culprit in acceptance to college but the family’s income and affordable price for previous and future education should be the deciding factor. I agree with affirmative action but it should be based on the individual’s or family’s economic status as well as the condition of their school’s facilities and education system, not race.

An individual with a low economic status should be given an equal chance as an individual with a high economic status for college. Giving those with financial problems a little boost should do this, whether that is ‘bonus’ points or a subjective recognition, in order to have the same chance as an individual who comes from a wealthy family. Admission Directors for universities should be allowed to use this ‘economic action’ to help accept certain students because “Standardized testing is…unfair, as students in upper-class schools have more access to upper-level classes and test-preparation classes” (Pryse 1). As you can clearly see and most likely infer, wealthy families can provide more intimate programs for test taking as well as a wider variety of superior schools for education to their kids than those of lower-class families. Not only can they go to superior schools, they can most likely afford more beneficial materials and/or tutors that can even further boost their child’s grades and test scores above the average student. Since lower-class students cannot afford these educational luxuries, they are often looked down upon because of their grades and/or test scores when indeed some of these students may have the same, if not better work ethic than those of the high-class.

In relation to low-income recipients often comes with poor facilitated schools with an inadequate or under privileged educational system. Individuals with this type of status should be given grace points for not being able to attend a better developed educational system. I say this because individuals of wealthy families are often sent to wonderful educational institutes or college preparatory high schools. So by giving points or special recognition to less fortunate students you will be giving them an equal chance to those of greater fortune.

Now, first, you are probably wondering when I am going to mention the big controversy on being accepted on the criterion of race. I think colleges should give acceptance aid to those in economic need rather than the color of their skin. I vouch for this because skin has nothing to do with the way people think about the world. If you accept a person on the basis that their skin is a different color so they must think differently, that is a fallacy. For example, if a Caucasian and an African American grows up in a similar circumstance with wealthy families and good schooling, do not you think they would agree on most, if not all, of the same governmental issues? I think colleges would obtain many more extraordinary views of the world if they chose students from different economic backgrounds. I know I would probably view the world differently if I had a different economic background. Would not you?

And second, many complain that applicants chosen by this ‘economic action’ will not be properly qualified because of their weak educational background. Now, let me tell you according to Paul Pryse that “unqualified...privileged kids are nearly twice as common as...students who had benefitted from affirmative action” (1). Most of these types of students are accepted on the basis that they know or have special connections within the university they are applying to. So, if you are worried about unqualified students, you might as well take your complaint to the other economic class and tell them to get their act together. Also, I would like to make clear that these unprivileged would not be accepted only because of their economic standpoint. They would have to go through the same application process with grades, test scores, and teacher recommendations. What I mean is would you rather have the high scoring rich kid who has a reputation worst than an animal or would you want the unprivileged, decent scoring, ethnical student with great character that has the potential to become a man for others? I would choose the fortunate unfortunate.

The final point is that students with a poorly educated background should be given extra acceptance points or special recognition in order for them to have an equal chance to be admitted. Colleges should do this because there are many thoughtful minds in the world but some are looked over. Looked over not because of their race but because of financial problems causing a lack of educational nourishment. After all, in the United States Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. Does that mean everyone student should have an equal opportunity to be accepted by universities? I think so. That is why ‘economic action’ should be used to help support unfortunate, hard working, and moral Americans an equal and fortunate opportunity.

Similar Articles


This article has 0 comments.

Parkland Book