https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

Not surprising at all.

What is your solution for this?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

---

Yep

What do you want?

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

---

Sounds like you are advocating that people should work hard and be innovative to become wealthy.

---

You should really read the study.

The point is that being smart is much less of a predictor of success than the wealth of your parents.

That's not meritocratic. That's the opposite of meritocratic.

william said:

---

pay up, whitey...........

- KKM

---

lol

>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

Booray said:

---

william said:

---

>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

---

How much of that is Medicare and Social Security Retirement payments?

I ask because those two programs tend to reinforce socioeconomic status.

---

Medicare and Medicaid alone are 26% of all the budget.

Social Security is 24%.

So 83% of all money spent on social programs, to answer your question, is what percentage is made up of Medicare/aid and Social Security.

So, basically, William is kind of full of *****

We spend roughly twice as much on Defense than we do on safety net programs.

The myth that Jesus is the only.
The myth that I choose my own way.
The myth that Western civilization is the best

william said:

---

>> In 2017, federal, state, and local governments spent $3,882 billion on social programs. This amounts to:

• 60% of all current government spending.
• $11,918 for every person living in the U.S.
• $30,755 for every household in the U.S.
• 19.9% of the U.S. gross domestic product.<<<<

---

Correctamundo!

william said:

---

pay up, whitey...........

- KKM

---

already 30 years.

yikes.

- BUmma

good album.

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

---

The OP referenced a study that was done this past decade. My example was over a time period of 3 generations. It would take two more generations from now, 40+ years, for what you are trying to insinuate to have any relevance.

Are you a race baiter? Do you have an entitlement mentality that thinks the government owes you something?

BearN said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

---

The OP referenced a study that was done this past decade. My example was over a time period of 3 generations. It would take two more generations from now, 40+ years, for what you are trying to insinuate to have any relevance.

Are you a race baiter? Do you have an entitlement mentality that thinks the government owes you something?

---

Not what I said ? Entitlement is your word not mine.
That's your lenses. Your 3 generation analogy is a fraud. I went through the exact same generational prism but I have enough gratitude in me to know to thank those on whose shoulders I stood.
My Dad got the GI Bill and a VHA loan on our first house. I got my education in a Methodist university and seminary on the strength of a thousand local churches, Sunday School classes, and women's mission groups. I was not "entitled " to any of it but I have deep felt gratitude for the government and my denomination for giving me a hand up. I was born white too and that helped. I went to good Waco segregated schools not black inferior schools. That's not meritocracy but segregation and being born in the right white family.
I turn now and give a hand up to all desire it not a hand up.

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN said:

---

This is the Land of Opportunity. Not the Land of Meritocracy.

It oftentimes takes multiple generations of hard work and sacrifice in a family before reaching a certain socioeconomic status. That was certainly true in my family. Many of the people on this board had grandparents that were dirt poor starting families during the Great Depression. There was no Food Stamps. No Social Security. No Free Handouts. College wasn't even something they could afford to dream about. Many of them couldn't even go to high school.

Until they publish a study where they track a generation busting their ass working 60+ hours a week so that they can save enough to send their kids to college, make good grades, and bust their ass 60+ hours a week to send those kids to college, I don't want to hear about it.

Anybody who thinks life is always fair is in for a life of disappointment.

---

Are you black?

---

The OP referenced a study that was done this past decade. My example was over a time period of 3 generations. It would take two more generations from now, 40+ years, for what you are trying to insinuate to have any relevance.

Are you a race baiter? Do you have an entitlement mentality that thinks the government owes you something?

---

Not what I said ? Entitlement is your word not mine.
That's your lenses. Your 3 generation analogy is a fraud. I went through the exact same generational prism but I have enough gratitude in me to know to thank those on whose shoulders I stood.
My Dad got the GI Bill and a VHA loan on our first house. I got my education in a Methodist university and seminary on the strength of a thousand local churches, Sunday School classes, and women's mission groups. I was not "entitled " to any of it but I have deep felt gratitude for the government and my denomination for giving me a hand up. I was born white too and that helped. I went to good Waco segregated schools not black inferior schools. That's not meritocracy but segregation and being born in the right white family.
I turn now and give a hand up to all desire it not a hand up.

---

What helped is that A) you had a dad, B) he stuck around long enough to provide a home for you, and C) your dad got the GI Bill and went to college. Do they still not allow minorities to serve in the military? I'm pretty sure they do. And thanks to President Trump, the benefits for those that serve just got a whole lot better. So college and VA loans are available to all. Thanks for helping me make my point.

https://rebootcamp.militarytimes.com/education-transition/education/2017/08/16/trump-signed-the-forever-gi-bill-here-are-11-things-you-should-know/

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

---

Sounds like you are advocating that people should work hard and be innovative to become wealthy.

---

You should really read the study.

The point is that being smart is much less of a predictor of success than the wealth of your parents.

That's not meritocratic. That's the opposite of meritocratic.

---

I certainly believe this to be true.

Which is why parents should aid their offspring in every possible way throughout their lives .

Doc Holliday said:

---

Not surprising at all.

What is your solution for this?

---

Brave New World set out a good leftist model to solve this problem.

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

---

Sounds like you are advocating that people should work hard and be innovative to become wealthy.

---

You should really read the study.

The point is that being smart is much less of a predictor of success than the wealth of your parents.

That's not meritocratic. That's the opposite of meritocratic.

---

I certainly believe this to be true.

Which is why parents should aid their offspring in every possible way throughout their lives .

---

The hand you hold is the hand that holds you down. The worst thing you can do for someone is something they should do for themselves. Parents should raise children to become adults by at least 20. A plus 20 year old sucking on the family teat is just like a 5 year old that gets up, goes and gets a diaper and hands it to his mother to change him. Parents that try to maintain a life time of control by nursing babies that should be grown need to let go. The difference between a boy and a man is that a man is independant. A boy is not. The more people a man takes care of the more manly he is.

Controlling parents do much more harm than good in the long run.

One could find anecdotal evidence and cherry pick either side of the argument if they wanted to. But the fact is, it takes hard work to be independently successful. Having wealthy parents may give someone an advantage, but they still have to put in the hard work to be successful. I've known plenty of people from wealthy parents that are failures at life and I've met just as many people from poor parents that are successful at life. Each person is different, has different motivations and measures individual success differently, so any study that has concrete results must be examined closely to find the motivation of the conductor of the study.

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/

Study: It's better to have rich parents than be smart

A recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds that there is a correct answer to the often posed hypothetical of being born with a big brain or a big bank account.

The big picture: In "Born to Win, Schooled to Lose," researchers found that being born "affluent" but dim carries a 7 in 10 chance of reaching a high socioeconomic status as an adult, while being born intelligent but "disadvantaged" means just a 3-in-10 shot.

Details: "The study found that a kindergarten student from the bottom 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the top 25% of students has a 31% chance of earning a college education and working a job that pays at least $35,000 by the time they are 25, and at least $45,000 by the time they are 35," CNBC's Abigail Hess reports.

• "A kindergarten student from the top 25% of socioeconomic status with test scores from the bottom 25% of students had a 71% chance of achieving the same achievements," Hess writes.

How they did it: Researchers analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), tracing students from kindergarten to adulthood, assessing how they did on standardized math tests.

---

Sounds like you are advocating that people should work hard and be innovative to become wealthy.

---

You should really read the study.

The point is that being smart is much less of a predictor of success than the wealth of your parents.

That's not meritocratic. That's the opposite of meritocratic.

---

I'm aware of the study and the dozen others that have attempted to explain the same thing. This is the only study that suggests education by itself is the answer. That should be a clue to you.

Multiple peer reviewed studies say that Open Networks is by far the greatest predictor of career success. As it turns out, people who come from wealthy families know people that own businesses or are C-Level managers of companies and can strongly influence hiring decisions.

It's all in who you know.

Basically, you've hand selected an advocacy study.

---

If that's your outcome of this, then I sincerely don't think you read it.

Saying "education is the answer" is almost the OPPOSITE" of the outcomes here.

The point is that education is one of the LEAST predictive measures of success.