In eighth grade, going through the high school application process, I was one of the few around me that had a real chance at all the opportunities around us, as I did well academically and my parents had money. I applied for high schools through the NYC Public School system, as well as took the SHSAT examinations, getting into my top choices. Nonetheless, I chose to go to my private school. There were many reasons for this, but the main ones were that specialized high schools never really impressed me–I could get the same education elsewhere–and that it was an unfair system. The Hammack further justified my view on specialized high schools, one that I did not at first realize I even had.
I, at first, did not realize that I even had a true view on “elite schooling” and its admissions policies because, in many ways I have become desensitized to inequality; I see it so often. In the process of preparing for and taking the SHSAT, I’ve seen so many individuals just as smart–if not smarter–as myself unable to accomplish the same things because they are unable to to properly prepare (due to lack of funds, for example). In a broken system, they are expected to perform the impossible and achieve. The Hammack reading supports this by showing the Chinese admissions policies in Los Angeles. In addition, he also supports my opinion through speaking on the history of the admissions policies continuously being modified and improved, in an attempt to make it more just and equal between races.
What I found most interesting, however, is that this was written almost a decade ago and it is still being addressed and modified. Although on one hand it may be sad that we are still having the same conversations, it is also nice to know that school reform is alive and well, with people continuously fighting to promote change and equal opportunity to all. So although this article only strengthened my opinion about the SHSAT and “elite school”, I hope that as time goes on and more reform takes place, it will change.
Similarly to you, I also chose not to attend a specialized high school due to the immense inequality that these schools represent. I find it ridiculous that specialized high schools receive more funding than New York City public schools do, yet most taxpayers’ children will never get the chance to attend these elite institutions. Furthermore, it is questionable as to how much better of an education students who attend “elite” institutions actually get. Still these students gain admission to top colleges due to the name of their school, while intelligent students who work hard and do well in other public schools tend to be left behind.
The college application process taught me that intelligence and passion are often not enough to gain admission to top colleges. Instead, schools look for students who have certain characteristics that they can use to diversify their student body. For instance, often times schools strive to accept students with famous parents or strong athletic backgrounds. But, what about the students whose parents’ can’t afford to buy their way into a particular school? Or the students who can’t afford the immense expense that being on a traveling sports team incurs? How do these students get a fair shot when it comes to being admitted to elite institutions? They don’t. These disadvantaged students who can’t afford to adequately prepare for entrance exams, tend to be Black and Hispanic. Their low socioeconomic status and lack of resources prevents them from doing well on standardized exams that require expensive preparation, which causes racial imbalance in elite high schools and colleges (Hammack 388).
However, what reasonable alternatives exist to bring about a better racial balance in schools? In the Hammack reading, ethnic caps were put in place in California in the late 1990s. They required “smarter races,” such as Asians and Whites, to get significantly higher scores on exams than Blacks and Hispanics had to get in order to be accepted to certain high schools (385). The implementation of this strategy was meant to reduce the disproportionally-high percentage of Asians in San Francisco schools. Although this policy would have eventually made schools more racially-representative, would it have make the admissions process fairer? No, it would have done exactly the opposite. Minority races would have had a better chance of getting into prestigious schools while other races’ chances of success were unfairly diminished. Luckily this discriminatory policy was struck down in 1994. But, it still raises an important question; what can elite institutions do to fairly address the lack of diversity in their schools? There has to be a better way to make schools more racially-representative of the neighborhoods in which they are located than by holding students of certain races to higher standards than others. I am not sure how this can be done other than by adopting a more holistic admissions approach. This is something I hope to come to terms with by the end of the semester.
Thanks for these posts. You both express considerable optimism, despite relatively pessimistic beginnings. What if the “better system” to somehow marry exclusivity with equity proves elusive? Is there a way to make these two seemingly competing values work together within a public school district? Also, please note that Hammack wrote about San Francisco, not LA, which does not have the same history of exclusive, competitive admissions for a public high school (and also does not have any high schools with the same levels of prestige as Lowell in SF or the specialized high schools in NYC).