Ryan and I listened to this last week. We had different opinions on the reporting. I was very glad to see it, but it was a huge endeavor to take on as a mini series. Thought of it like a dip into thinking about Poverty if someone hadn't been exposed to any of the ideas before.
^ on that specific note I want to explain a moment early on in the series that likely set me toward a very critical perspective on the series. At a point, Gladstone cites statistics suggesting only 4% of Atlantans (the worst city in this statistic) born in the bottom quintile of income will reach the top income quintile as statistical proof that coming up from the bottom (the American Dream) is impossible. Reducing that 4% to 0% is ludicrous, as is describing all of America as similar to Atlanta (in many cities it is well over 10%).
That it is 4% in the worst of samples is not proof against the possibility of the American Dream but proof of it. Given that it is entirely reasonable to believe that: 1 Parents typically want high incomes for their students
2 There is some opportunity cost at which parents can 'buy' opportunity for their children (tutors, reading to a child, buying healthy snacks, access to better education via expensive housing, spending leisure time with children, etc)
3 Parents with more money (in higher income quintiles) will consume more opportunity-for-their-children
4 Children inherit both physical and cultural traits from their parents
5 Certain heritable physical traits are causally associated with higher incomes
6 Certain heritable (metaphorically) cultural traits are causally associated with higher
I believe seeing 4% (~1 student in every public classroom) make it to the top quintile is impressive evidence in favor of the possibility of success.
All of this is not to and never to say that nothing could be better, not that no things are bad. The series points to a variety of obvious systemic failures on the part of Americans to care for and raise up our downtrodden. What I do mean to say is that when Gladstone dismisses the potential of these children and the dreams of these parents for their children (including a couple of women she speaks to extensively) to assert the irrefutably of her position, that she is BOTH factually incorrect and demeaning of (if not also condescending to) people living in poverty.
Ryan and I listened to this last week. We had different opinions on the reporting. I was very glad to see it, but it was a huge endeavor to take on as a mini series. Thought of it like a dip into thinking about Poverty if someone hadn't been exposed to any of the ideas before.
ReplyDelete^ on that specific note I want to explain a moment early on in the series that likely set me toward a very critical perspective on the series. At a point, Gladstone cites statistics suggesting only 4% of Atlantans (the worst city in this statistic) born in the bottom quintile of income will reach the top income quintile as statistical proof that coming up from the bottom (the American Dream) is impossible. Reducing that 4% to 0% is ludicrous, as is describing all of America as similar to Atlanta (in many cities it is well over 10%).
ReplyDeleteThat it is 4% in the worst of samples is not proof against the possibility of the American Dream but proof of it. Given that it is entirely reasonable to believe that:
1 Parents typically want high incomes for their students
2 There is some opportunity cost at which parents can 'buy' opportunity for their children (tutors, reading to a child, buying healthy snacks, access to better education via expensive housing, spending leisure time with children, etc)
3 Parents with more money (in higher income quintiles) will consume more opportunity-for-their-children
4 Children inherit both physical and cultural traits from their parents
5 Certain heritable physical traits are causally associated with higher incomes
6 Certain heritable (metaphorically) cultural traits are causally associated with higher
I believe seeing 4% (~1 student in every public classroom) make it to the top quintile is impressive evidence in favor of the possibility of success.
All of this is not to and never to say that nothing could be better, not that no things are bad. The series points to a variety of obvious systemic failures on the part of Americans to care for and raise up our downtrodden. What I do mean to say is that when Gladstone dismisses the potential of these children and the dreams of these parents for their children (including a couple of women she speaks to extensively) to assert the irrefutably of her position, that she is BOTH factually incorrect and demeaning of (if not also condescending to) people living in poverty.