.... that's how the american capital of IT works. Same way as the american capital of Cinema.

So powerful. This basically means that everyone may or may not have had the same reason for "white flight", but they all did it and wielded the knife of cutting off the tax base of urban areas.

Proving that white flight is more of a financial thing.

That's a shame in and of itself.

I believe both.

I would like to quote this in my research paper.

What an icon! He is a symbol of true black excellence.

A prime example of white flight in America. Whether the main cause was racism, "religiousness", or economic reasons, is unknown. But I believe that it was a mixture of them all.

Agreed.

"Intellectually honest" = back your claims with credible research!

The "entertainment" part of our op-eds depends on tone and voice. Remember, you can write conversationally in an op-ed, but still need to keep it professional. Engage readers.

You may find a classmate writing about the same current event you are--and expressing a completely different opinion!

Keyword: NEW. That's you!

As you learn about your current event, you will likely read through many news publications, some of which are strictly fact based, and others which are op-eds themselves. You are coming to the table with your own viewpoint, and you are prepared to defend it.

This is exactly what we are going for: engaging in a persuasive discussion of current events, where our analyses are supported with credible research.

Not important or significant

Interesting in the context of public annotation--what are the benefits/limitations of this kind of "populist glee" and must one replace the other?

There's probably a commentary here about incel groups too but I just cant think of it.

This in particular reminds me of the Boston Bombing, and how reddit users took it among themselves to find out who did it and instead doxxed the wrong person, who eventually ended up killing himself I believe since the false accusation. Everyone think in these scenarios they're doing it for the cause, and that they're in the right, until someone uninvolved gets accused and ruins their lives. I do think it's tricky though because I do think for like, the people going to Nazi rallies and promoting hateful and toxic content need to recognize there are probably consequences for creating hostility, but where is that line drawn?

I know it says that it's been happening for a while, but doxxing has been a huge part of toxic internet culture for the last 12+ years. Definitely longer than the march in Charlottesville, anyways.

Posting someone's information is unbelievable. It's unbelievable someone would do that. Those people should be held liable for their actions. Just because someone had an opinion about gaming culture, doesn't mean someone should attack them and exploit the person's information online. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and doxing is not a good way to get your point across.

This article looks at the consequences of doxxing and how it's become a mainstream answer to exposing white supremacists. It supports both pros and cons of "outing" by using quotes from counter-protestors to a Nazi march in San Francisco and a Nazi reformer. There are references to a Charlottesville, VA march, mistaken identity with doxxing, the death of Cecil the lion, and the mob mentality behind doxxing.

This is worrying- it is important to correctly identify. This is where the vigilantism can go very wrong.#weblit and #LS121FA

I see this happen a lot with Shaun King- he often uncovers the identities of people who attack peaceful protesters. These people may otherwise never have been caught. It is online vigilantism and I get it.#weblit and #LS121FA

Does this mean when I am out supporting a Black Lives Matter event, that someone who doesn't agree with me, can doxx me? It is not I appreciate your transparent.

I would tend to agree with this assessment.

Reminiscent of the literal uncovering of a Klan hood.

People who are doxxed could be good or bad people, but it doesn't justify its the right thing to do.

Doxxing can misidentify people wrongly. For example, the Arkansas professor was misidentified and accused of participating in a neo-Nazi march. This is very harmful for the peace loving people. Once someone is labelled in a certain negative way on the internet it is hard for the suffering person to reclaim their lost reputation and peace.

Doxxing is called passive aggressive violence. Mr. Tony McAleer who runs Life After Hate states that doxxing can provide some level of comfort for people who are outraged by people like neo-Nazis. But doxxing makes the job of people like Mr. McAleer who tries to integrate people like neo-Nazis to humanity. People should understand the consequences of labeling someone as an extremist on the internet because once someone is labeled as an extremist it stays as it is on the internet and it reaches millions of people. I think people should be mindful and they need to think about their reputation before joining any extremist groups because their activities can be exposed on the internet and it makes a negative impact on them.

I saw a play about game gate, really well done and really illustrated the personal impacts of being "doxx"'d. Reflecting back on that story, doxx'ing seems like it might be a poor way to actually influence someone's thinking or behavior.

I think that same could be said for any label you want to put on people on the internet. Due to the nature of the internet once it is "out there" it is never going away. Even if you have evolved and no longer hold views you once held, the things you said, will continue to be there for everyone to experience, see, judge, discover about you, etc.

Tony McAleer makes a strong point. Once something is posted on the internet, it is difficult to undo it, impacting both the near and far future of a person's life. I honestly don't know a lot about doxxing, but if someone (such as a white supremacist leader like McAleer) is rehablitiated and reintergrated into humanity, then they shouldn't be judged for the mistakes of the past, not when they are trying to be their better selves.

This reminds me of the power of social media. It's like once you got tagged or defined into a group, it's close to the point where you can never go back. E.g. Once you are labeled as Nazi, you are Nazi for the rest of your life.

My first time hearing the term "doxxing"

And then the dark side of doxxing. Inaccurate by either design or mistake as later stated in the article "Once identified as a Nazi on the Internet, always a Nazi on the Internet.

weblit #LS121FA

This seems an effective and ethical use of doxxing in this instance. Someone marching in a rally can hardly claim invasion of privacy and perhaps their hometown folks and employers have a right to know what they do across state on their time off. #weblit #LS121FA

I think it's really important to note that people can really interfere with police investigations and cause chaos in the lives of the people they point the finger at.

I think when people are angry, that makes them willing to commit more extreme acts than they might otherwise not do.

this the rather interesting nature of doxxing people. Therefore it should not be a surprise when people get in trouble for their behavior.

weblit #LS121SU

I agree and I disagree with the person who runs the Life After Hate group. I agree that shaming people will not help but rather drive back to pass behavior. However, I don't believe that white supremacy is caused by Isolation and shame. I understand feeling alienation but white supremacy isn't about feeling shame about being white. But rather a hubris, hatred and contempt for non white people.

weblit #LS121SU

Fire has historically been used in battle, and as a fear tactic. Take the Great Fire of London in 1666, which destroyed thousands upon thousands of homes, churches, and businesses. While that fire may have been an accident, it's a testament to the destructive power of fire.

There are many things, passive and active, that white supremacists could accomplish with such tiki torches, including burning people of color in direct combat. Considering the nature of white supremacy, I'm surprised I have not seen such accounts of violence on the news.

Well, that's a heck of a way to start off an article.

Honestly, there's a certain sort of camaraderie within protests. Not all of them are jovial, as what seems to be going on here, but by their nature, they're very passionate. At the BLM protest in Walnut Creek I attended, we were blowing out our lungs chanting in support of the fallen, and I ended up getting swept away on a wave of justified anger by the time we flooded onto the freeway. A large source of anger amongst the protestors is that the cops overseeing the protests, for the most part, covered their badge numbers and other identifying teachers, meaning that by the time tear gas and rubber bullets were on the table, there was no enemy more specific than the Walnut Creek Police Department. You can't exactly doxx a whole police department and expect it to have as severe of a consequence as if the individual police officers were prosecuted individually.

P.S.: I note the bias in my annotation, but the difficulty in diffuse consequences stands.

This can be very dangerous, we might want to be "Sherlock Holmes", but in reality, we might be destroying someones future for an attempt to "help" . we really need to be careful what we say and post in social media

It is sad to see this kind of behavior. Glad to see equality in the gaming community is starting to appear.

This can be very dangerous and potentially ruin someones life. When information is displayed online, it must be checked and then triple checked to ensure the information being presented is truthful and accurate.

Where do we draw the line? who is in charge on deciding what is right and wrong? Does the end justify the meaning? Doesn't shaming people in public bring more injustice to the plate? Doesn't violence bring more violence? I draw the line when i know people is or will be getting hurt in any way. You see, we need more empathy in this world.

Another problem with doxxing worth considering is that people may have an emotional response to a picture without contextualizing it. They might respond strongly and repost the picture or video, but their indignation might be premature and unjustified.

Nellie Bowles, a journalist covering technology for the New York Times in the San Francisco Bay Area, examines how doxxing, even with the best intentions in mind, can become problematic and have unintended ethical ramifications. One of the problems arising from “doxxing” is a probability of error and misidentification. Another serious potential ethical problem is labeling people for the rest of their lives without any hope for redemption.

This is exactly the situation in the Plane Bae situation

Origin of term doxxing

This is a really interesting fact. Writing before a war for a question that was just out of curiosity

We as social media users have to use things such as past experiences as a to to help people change and help them see the true reality of things. Many people are uninformed and usually get the wrong image and message of things do to the false or negative information they receive form minorities.

This can be dangerous do to the fact that many people have been confused by the person who has done the crime, and end up serving a sentence that they do not deserve.

this is a wonderful example of a way that social media can highlight the cruelty of the world and bring attention to people's gross actions and words so that they cannot get away with it any longer without going checked

I think this highlights the dangers of doxxing people without having enough evidence to make sure these people are the ones that commited the crime. In this example they harmed someone who was completely innocent.

I am on board with people being held accountable for their words and acts of discrimination like the march in Charlottesville, but what scares me about doxxing is that racist people will just go back to hiding their racism, makes me wonder if there's anything we can do to have these people change their way of thinking

This article shocks me in many ways and how I learned a new thing and that was Doxxing. This comment really caught my eye just because they can be referring back to clans back then and how they kept their identity a secret to avoid the hate that they would be getting. How Doxxing you show your face and people can see who you are and the protest.

Paragraph 7

Pathos- happiness / Noone wants to be unhappy

Pathos- Worry

Pathos- amuses reader

Ethos

ETHOS

Ethos

logos

logos

Logos

shifted blame on saturated fat.

Also see Social Capital's 2018 Annual Letter which noted that 40c of every VC dollar is now spent on Google, Facebook, and Amazon (ads)

The leaders of more than half a dozen new online retailers all told me they spent the greatest portion of their ad money on Facebook and Instagram.

“In the start-up-industrial complex, it’s like a systematic transfer of money” from venture-capital firms to start-ups to Facebook.

Steph Korey, a founder of Away, a luggage company based in New York that opened in 2015, says that when the company was starting, it made $5 for every $1 it spent on Facebook Lookalike ads.

They began trading their Lookalike groups with other online retailers, figuring that the kind of people who buy one product from social media will probably buy others. This sort of audience sharing is becoming more common on Facebook: There is even a company, TapFwd, that pools together Lookalike groups for various brands, helping them show ads to other groups.

Its really disheartening to hear that good people have been forced into poverty and racial prejudice years down the line from something that has happened 90 years ago. Rather than dealing with foreign issues that only create more problems for us and the troops the American government should be doing what it can to help its own populations that it cursed in the beginning.

This is mostly true as this does indeed happen. Most minorities are taken advantage of and abused to get what they want. Racist ideals do influence urban neighborhoods.

So Less Exploitation of natural Resources?

unlimited resources？

paragraph 1

These people were taken advantage of in this scheme and could not afford to take out a loan thus sealing their fate.

This is mostly true as this does indeed happen. Most minorities are taken advantage of and abused to get what they want. Racist ideals do influence urban neighborhoods.

Recommended by Mahika

This comment exemplifies the important theme within participatory culture that is addressed in the Module 5 lecture about information ethics: "We’re in this space where in theory, we are all benefiting from each other's participation but there can be unintended consequences from that participation." (Moss, 2019).

Bowles's explanation and definition of doxxing as a form of online vigilante justice recalls Jenkins statement in “Defining Participatory Culture" that, “Over time, the term “resistance” came to refer to symbolic gestures that questioned or challenged the values of the status quo.” (Jenkins, 15).

This is the beginning of cyber violence. Once defined as someone, You will start to be attacked.

I never heard about dooxing. This sentence gives me the definition.

I disagree with this thought, because I think that if someone stands for something, it is better for them to say it than to hide it. If it's something harmful to others, then this transparency would allow others to be prepared and careful, or the authorities to control it, if necessary.

I agree with this idea. If doxxing in this case means making the name of people who openly go out in public supporting a cause available, then I think it isn't wrong.

When protesters take the streets, they want to be heard and seen, which consequently makes them identifiable. Nowadays that also includes being recorded and the spread of those media records.

I agree with this man. In this case, doxxing seems to me like a negatively-intentioned response to a negative action.

I think everyone is responsible for their actions and must be held accountable for them; whether it is being a neo-Nazi, uncovering one or shaming one.

I find it interesting that being veiled is an idea instead of a fact. Also, I think this sentences exposes the vulnerability of being "veiled".

This is a big problem when we rely so much on technology. We should trust technology (eg, facial recognition), but always verify before making claims that could harm others.

It has been a nightmare for these protesters to experience the threat of a group of hackers.

I never knew "doxxing" meant as retrieving personal files of an individual by hackers. I found this surprising that it's an ongoing problem on the internet.

This is a good quote to use.

This is useful evidence for a paper on me too and whiteness.

White supremacists still wear "hoods" of anonymity on the internet. That's why subculture sites and imageboards like 4chan or 8chan swarm with extremist views. Such sites boast an open board of anonymity and minimum censorship, and hiding behind a username = hiding under a hood. However, even when IP addresses can be traced and everyone and their mother has half of an an online presence, doxxing extremists is an incredibly difficult task.

This is a really great way of explaining how it feels to be "doxxed." Most individuals who do shady things on the internet are hiding under layers of cloaks- and to be publicized, revealed, and have your private information leaked, is to truly feel exposed and scared.

This really is something that worries me. Innocent people can be hurt because of some people wanting to play vigilante. And even if they were guilty of whatever, would publicly shaming do anything other them reinforcing their convictions? I think their are a lot of better ways to handle this.

This is really disturbing because what if he was just a regular guy? He might get fired, loose family, loose friends, etc. all over one person who "thought" he looked like a racist? That's beyond simple thinking, it's dangerous thinking.

This ties back to a prompt from the discussion thread about whether or not people who put themselves or content on the internet is fair game. I think in this situation it is fair game if someone is marching proudly in a parade without hiding their identity.

I never knew there was a term for this so it's cool to now know the name of it. I think "stalking" has become really normalized on the internet now which is concerning when you think about it, but I know I have done it before.

I agree with this part of the article. Often times, what makes someone stop having extremist or hateful views is not publicly berating and shaming them. In fact, doxxing can have the opposite affect of only causing someone to double down on what they already believe out of spite.

I found this very troubling to read. While I have always thought of doxxing as inappropriate given the legitimate awful affects it can have on someone, it only makes it worse when you realize it can also affect completely innocent people that were wrongly targeted.

This is the danger of doxxing people who are misrepresented by people who have misinformation. It's important to not rush to conclusions because you can end up hurting people.

This is unfortunate and I think doxxing can get dangerous when you label people simply because they have opposing views as you. For example people on the right might get labeled as Nazis from far leftist just because they have different political views. This is dangerous and can get people hurt.

This is true in more ways than one. They stay that way on the internet because most everything cannot be deleted. And they stay this way in real-life because this is how everyone will view them for the rest of their lives, so why would they change? Doxxing is not the solution to hate. It just creates more.

This is terrifying and shows just how dangerous the internet and doxxing can be. Imagine if you were misidentified and then your whole reputation is ruined? How does one repair that? You are no longer safe. Doxxing is always wrong.

Black hat hackers were/are considered the "bad" side of hacking, yet the "Robin Hood" heros by others.

Essentially it is intelligence - public, private, or a combination. Often this information is in an gathered in unethical manner.

Ultimately, the intention and the end result of doxxing really determines the result. I don't know if the true result of actions that result in someone loosing their job or receiving death threats really helps anyone. If a Nazi sympathizer looses their job do they become more desperate and radicalized? I doubt they suddenly become enlightened and start treating others with respect from being doxxed. If a environmentalist receives death threats are they going to fundamentally change they way they think or feel about the worlds ecological systems? Are either of these results positive? I'd argue that they are not. An eye for an eye and everyone is blind.

M. Lewis

Unfortunately, this type of behavior can work both ways. The Nazi's essentially doxxed the Jewish people living in Germany many years ago. Today groups on the left and right use this tactic to call people out to be fired, death threats, etc. I have mixed feeling on this. Hate groups are essentially terrorist groups, but in many parts of the world - and unfortunately here - human rights activists are also considered terrorists. Doxxing is at best a band aid solution to larger societal problems. You can chase those problems under the rug or under hoods, but they are still there, yet I do see some sense to the argument of calling people out for their actions.

Unfortunately, doxxing's potential for misuse and abuse is massive. With social/credit scores, facial recognition, and AI - one better hope those in charge, or their computers, think highly of you.

M. Lewis

I didn't even know that this Doxxing thing exist, but I think that is very bad they are using private and confidential information to hurt other people.

I am rather concerned that people have no privacy anymore. I like these examples of people policing other people.

I think that just because they were out there without hoods, but that doesn't mean that all there information should be out there.

It can also go the other. Like Doxxing someone that doesnt want to be. Like #PlaneBae. It might be effective for someone that doesnt like a group, but its not good for the otherside.

I had not idea that this was even a thing. I'll have to keep this quote in mind

Agree with the statement said by Mr.McAleer we should try to integrate humanity in people instead of isulting people for their actions the. Let the government do their work. And by labeling a person a Nazi doesnt mean he is actually a Nazi he may be a better person than you.

That one of the major negative aspects of online website where people can do anything they want or say something against anyone which also fuels the courage to others to do the same thing online.

The danger with "doxxing" is that it is anonymous. It is not face-to-face confrontation. With doxxing you can simply point your finger at a person and defame them, even without having to prove anything was true. And you can ruin a person...just look at Matt Lauer or Bill Cosby. Now I'm not saying they were or weren't guilty, but the public definitely decided that they were OUT. Doxxing is dangerous because it is irreversible, and so completely life-changing.

This is inaccurate thinking, and is frankly horrifying. Should it be up to the everyman to enforce ethics/morality? If this were true, we would be living in Orwellian times, where "citizens" live in fear of the whims/dictates of the current regime. And there would be no checking to make sure the accusations were true. People would be convicted before being tried. Super scary stuff. No thank you.

Where you live can unfortunately have a huge effect on everything. The banks see this and are reluctant to lend money. Although its a risk, I think people from these neighborhoods should be given more of a chance to get mortgages in order to afford the house they want.

when i read this line, I immediately thought about these lyrics from this song i heard called "I'm not racist" by Joyner Lucas (I think you and anyone else should listen to it) it gives two different perspectives from someone who is African American and someone who's white. It have very explicit lanaguage but they mention something about theres a cycle of the government to keep them under and exposed to low income households and how the country is raised by whites

So prejudice caused lines drawn that may not have been completely factual? As the 1930's were a different time, it makes more sense but still, just because of race, places should not be marked as "hazardous" or "desirable," but again, it's the 30's.

Again like in many of the other articles, i think the majority of schools use these things to their own advantage.

I like that they are looking forward to first generation college students. That is a lot of student who are the first to go to college in their families. This will be their first step to success. I remember my first semester at SF State, there were 90% of student that were first generation college student in my math class.

I relate to this statement because my parents do not speak English that well. When I had to file FAFSA for the first time I had to do majority of it myself because my mom could not understand what the form is trying to say.

I found this comment interesting because where I'm from, they would always talk about the benefits of being a first generation student. I guess it's different for different schools.

I completely agree with this. When people find out you are part of "low-income" they automatically make assumptions. For example, I have had people tell me or ask me why my parents never went to college. It is not that they didn't want to because my parents are both really smart, but because they couldn't. However, just because the children are low income, that doesn't mean they always will be. Getting an education, especially as a first generation student, you are encouraged more by the adversity.

i agree with this statement because the father was never there. If he was not in this students life then the student didn't benefit from the father and what the degree gave him. I think that the student should be identified as first generation because his mother did not get a higher education.

If this were the case then I would have been accepted into at least one UC. If they wanted to create a fair system they would make the UC system similar to the CSU system. Meaning that if you aren't accepted to one you have preference for a lower impacted school.

I understand the part where the author mentions how no one parent would acquire a bachelor's degree in a household. But, if a parent had obtained a master's degree would the child be considered a first generation student? That is what one may argue about according to the first legislative defintion.

I agree in increasing efforts for disadvantaged students to attend uni's; I don't agree with the first-gen method as it seems to be very unfocused. to me, first-gen isn't the same thing as "low income" or "underprivileged". There is technology out there designed to help future students navigate the academic. At first, I was very confused about the college process, and received no help from parents. All I had to do was use the internet and send a couple emails to get the answers I was looking for.

I actually don't believe in this day and age that being a first-gen college student is deserving of special treatment. I fail to see the disadvantage with today's technology, where if you have a question, you could just google the answer or watch a YouTube video. My parents never encouraged college or talked about college, but since I'm an adult I was able to do research and make a decision for myself. I've literally put myself through education with zero support from parents. I don't believe that is deserving of a "bump", while there are others who struggle financially.

Adjective;

Definition: wildly excited or uncontrolled

That's a way to determine if an applicant is pretending to be first gen/poor/struggling. This method can be helpful because there are many ACTUAL struggling people who are in desperate need getting an education. With fakers being in existence, the actual struggling people might not have a chance to get those privileges.

If only it was that easy. Most colleges won't simply give random people special "privileges" just because they're poor/first generation/etc. A lot more things have to be done for that to happen.

Back home, my community is predominantly Hispanic. Almost everyone that I knew had struggled filing for FAFSA, or didn’t even file for it because they either didn’t know how to, didn’t know the right resources, or were given false information by actual teachers that it would lead them to get their parent’s deported if they tried. I find it systematically racist, if they only settle to stay in that small town because of limited financial responsibility, then how are they going to be released from the endless cycle of misfortune? It’s very very frustrating when parent’s aren’t capable of understanding what needs to be filled out and how to fill it out correctly. My parents tried making me more in debt by selecting more loans than I needed because they needed the money to help pay for bills.

My initial thought upon reading this article is that it is going to somehow relate to me. I am a first generation college student, my mom came from the Philippines and my dad had only gone to community college, and I don’t think he even finished that. I have an older sister who dropped out of college and started a family, so in general, I am who my younger sisters look up to because I am the first person to actually try and achieve a degree. It is so very stressful to balance work, school, and family issues. It seems like everything weighs down on your shoulders as a first generation college student because you are trying to help your family while you are learning everything and doing everything on your own. It’s very frustrating. What I didn’t know, in terms of the article, is that both of your parents shouldn’t have a bachelor’s degree in order to be considered a first generation college student. I never really thought about the requirements for it, I just knew that I was one, so it was weird to just see it written out like that so blatantly. Also, the student should be considered a first generation college student if his father who had a degree, passed away before raising him. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Colleges only do this to make themselves look good on. paper, but do not really benefit the students. They do not give them enough money to pay for the schooling and depend on them to pay for some of it. Are they truly benefiting the low-income/ first generation?

It is hard for students who do not have both parents around, whether it be because of death or because your parents are not together. Some students have never meet a father before or a mother before, but still get judged based off of their background.

Assumptions are dangerous in particular within the college application world, many times people assume that just because your low income many things are handed to you when the truth is that poor kids like me must work 3 times as hard to get the level of a affluent child with unlimited resources.

This doesn't make sense to me, its confusing when private institution define something already made clear into their own version and push to make their information the only way to define a certain phrase or word. The boys dad past away there was no their with an advanced education therefor he is first generation this whole article is trying to argue something extremely clear.

I don't think the differing definitions for what makes somebody "first generation" should matter as much as what is required to help students that are struggling. It's unfortunate that people are focusing as much on how much people are disadvantaged instead of what could be done to help each student succeed.

I think this statement shows a personal example of how the education system, as well as certain programs for minority groups need to be improved. It clearly isn't fair that the school didn't classify the student as a first generation student.

I feel as if "first gen" students benefit this country so much. Everyone in this country should receive an education from a university. I think It would make people in the work force much stronger than they already are.

I think everyone should at least receive a chance at an opportunity to get a higher education. I don't think income should play a role in whether or not someone gets to go to college or not. I think there should be more help for students who come from a lower income families financially so that paying for school is not an issue.

I feel like financial aid is almost impossible to understand and apply for, each year it becomes harder and harder and they ask more detailed questions and it almost scary for some kids to apply for it because they have to ask their parents about very personal things, or like social security numbers which some parents may not even have. Also, some of the documents are complicated and unclear. I understand financial aid is a privilege but it shouldn't be that difficult, and I agree with Ms. Weingarten, because its hard for even students who already went through college or apply for it every year.

I feel like first generation student is very subjective in the sense that under many circumstances some kids can have both parents attend college but if they don't have connection to them then they are first generation, if their parents did university in another country, then they should be first generation. First generation is subjective and unique to each individual and I don't think laws can define that for everyone.

This stands out because it's something I never learned about, I actually think it's pretty cool that they tried to identify students that are disadvantaged without including race or ethnicity. I know that usually people of color are those that fit these categories but there is also more people who may be experiencing this disadvantage. Although I believe this to be interesting, I do have some doubts. Not all disadvantaged students are first-generation students so that might also affect other groups but I am not sure. This takes me back to people I once knew, I've met plenty of people not of color that are also first-generation students. These students also have the admission boost benefit of being first-generation students.

I agree with these assumptions. My mom didn't know what to do as well as myself. Having my own counselor to help me through the process helped tremendously when things went wrong.

Wow, this sentence really stands out to me because it shows just a little boost students get for being first-gem students. It is also a really interesting written sentence because of the way it is worded. "deserving of an admissions bump for being disadvantages." Getting a bump in a college admission should always be positive but in this case it is shown that the student is receiving a bump because of something that has most likely been a negative factor in their life. I am a first-generation student and when I began thinking about college, I was often told that being disadvantaged would help me into college. It makes me sad to think that I was dependent on these "disadvantages" in my life to get me to college.

Since his father, who passed away when he was a toddler, graduated from college he wasn't considered a first generation college student. I don't believe this is fair, because he is at a disadvantage as well as losing a parent. He should be an exception to the rule.

This definitely could be a good idea if those who are severely disadvantaged could receive even greater support. On the other hand, there are definitely circumstances were a student with parents who attended college don't really provide support for their child, and this could limit a larger amount of people attending college or affect the drop out rates.

I'm surprised that some schools are trying to create change by supporting first-gen students. Just by getting free tuition and not having to worry at all about how you are going to pay for college, can make a big difference in students' lives. But it also makes me wonder if these universities are not only trying to fill a gap, trying to make their college look like they care but if they also have the resources that these students who are just starting their college journey need to succeed.

I agree with this statement because the boy didn't benefit from his dad's education since his dad died when he was young. I think being a first-gen student also applies to those whose parents got an education outside the U.S. but when they moved here their education wasn't valid. I've known a couple of friends whose parents went to college in a Latin America country but are not really able to find a job using their degree.

first gen obviously includes kids with parents with no further education after high school, but it could also include immigrant parents who got their degrees in other countries, or parents who didnt finish college.

As a (former) emancipated minor, I wonder if the Department of Education would consider me to be a first-generation college student or not.

This is something that I have seen many times. People often assume that if you are low income that you did not have the chance to go to college and get a degree.

I feel that this is the case for many students. Family just sort of throw the idea of it at you, but do not actually have a plan.

I think this is a smart piece of advice. For many kids who don't qualify for the strict definition of what a first generation college student is should be encouraged to still inform colleges of their backgrounds which might have been disadvantaged. This way, they can still get benefits and more consideration because of their more difficult past.

I think this an interesting sentence because it shows how important and prominent the "first gen" label has become in the college application process. It is so important that many students are researching to see if they can qualify as one. This must mean it has a big difference in your admittance to college or maybe financial aid too. I think for some kids this is good, if they are first generation and also disadvantaged. But what if some kids who have a privileged upbringing are just using the term to try and get more acceptances. I also had the thought that there could be some kids who had less privileged their lives but had parents who didn't go to college, but they don't have the option to call themselves "first gen" and possibly get more advantages.

This is interesting to me because I think it shows that first generation college students are not always disadvantaged. It also shows that this label has its own stereotype and many kids are able to use it to their advantage. Although I do feel like most kids who are first generation college students are not as privileged in college preparation. Either way, I think colleges should still look at other facts about students upbringings, such as their income and family life, and evaluate them from there. Another thing though, it was stated earlier that University of Wisconsin was giving free tuition to first gen transfer students, but what if some of the students were like this particular girl and actually didn't need the free tuition. This reminds me of one of my friends who gets free healthcare because she is Native-American but she only has a very small portion of the genetics.

This is interesting to me. I have grown up being told by teachers, parents, and students going to an Ivy League school will help you improve your class standing because they are prestigious schools, but when looking at the data, the City University of New York System propelled many many lower-income students into the middle-class six times more than Ivy League schools, and that is an eye opener. This just shows that going to an Ivy League school doesn't always guarantee you the upper hand.

We should do more research on the people that came from lower-income families. See what helped them want more for their selves & family. See how we can get others to want and do the same.

This was something i heard from a lot of peers in high school. Most did stay home and said it would be cheaper, its what my parents wanted me to do. Instead i did what i wanted, i wanted to get out of my home town and see greater things. I am glad i did even though i struggle like everyone else due to the cost of college, I see how much better everything can be. My parents always told me to do better for myself and i am, but i do it for them as well. So, i guess my point was that if you want it bad enough if you work for it, you can do it. No matter where you start out.

Community college is really a great route and is often looked down upon as its not a 4 year school. Yet going to a community college means not only saving money but still getting a good education. I think some students may feel discouraged to go to school if they know they can't go to a 4 year and then rather just not go to school.

I think that this shows how big name schools get a lot of attention yet many not big name schools are doing amazing things for their students and have a high rate yet since they have not been recognized as a big name school it doesn't receive full recognition.

This was true for me to. In my situation, college was too expensive for me to go in without a clear goal of what I wanted to become. I didn't have a lot of guidance or work experience beforehand to make a calculated decision toward my professional goals. I once thought I wanted to work in film or creative writing, but once I dabbled with that before entering college and realizing how unstable of a lifestyle it entailed, I was able to make a decisive choice geared toward my strengths and values. College is just too risky to not be 100% on board with your career path. I would advising being familiar with your world before pursuing it.

This is a very interesting line that speaks to me on several levels. I've actually done a lot of research behind my current career path of becoming a Software Engineer and I'd have to agree with this line. People working in this field make on average $120,000 annually, and roughly 90% have a bachelors relating to SE. I personally used to work as an Aviation Maintenance Tech beforehand, which I didn't need a bachelors for and made $60,000 annually. In my opinion, the aviation job is significantly more difficult than SE. This just goes to show the importance of furthering education.

The study measured the student's salaries. I find it interesting that they measure the college's efficiency based off of how much money the alumni from each school received. Can a school still be efficient at teaching without guaranteeing careers?

I'm curious to know what the writer means when they state how universities struggle with "unprepared students". Does this mean that college acceptance rates are higher? Or does it mean that high schools are becoming worse at preparing students for college? Im going to keep this in mind as I read because I'm curious to know what the writer claims is causing this.

I think this a problem that we can correct in this country. I feel as if people high up in education do not emphasize enough the importance of attending some form of college is. I also think a way to fix this problem is make college cheaper. A big reason why people do not attend college is because it is too great of an expense. With lowering the cost of college we will have more educated people in this country and it will benefit this world greatly.

I think that city colleges are truly a great route for people who come from lower income families. Unfortunatley not everyone can afford to go to a 4 year university. I think people should push harder for young students to attend a city college if they can not afford to go to a 4 year school. The base knowledge that they will receive at a city college is way more than if they do not attend at all.

I agree with this statement because many elite privates do not fulfill the needs of low-income students. They give them some money, but not enough for these students to afford it. This is the reason why low-income students decide to go to community college first and transfer. It is cheaper and close to home so they are still able to help bring in income for their family. Elite schools try to help out the upper middle class and the rich instead of helping the ones who truly need it.

I do believe that the reasons students drop out are because they feel as if they do not get the attention needed or the college does not serve them as they wish it did. My cousin for example, dropped out of community college because she did not have teachers who helped her learn the way she wanted. She said they would not focus on their students nor did they interact with them. Even though college is much different than high school I think it is still necessary for teachers to know a bit about their students. This is a very interesting topic because it is also very important that there government needs to focus heavily on education.

I strongly agree with this quote because I do believe that attending universities is to help educate and raise a future economic level. Most families that are low income is because the parents do not have a job that pays above minimum wage. This is mostly due to the fact that they do not have an education further than a high school diploma, if that. I can strongly agree with that connection.

What I got from this is that some people just prefer to work jobs and get money now. People like store managers for retail who have started families and are just living off of hourly rates. I have coworkers that chose not to go to college because they would rather work full time in retail rather than going to school to pursue a job that they dont they could even get.

It stands out to me how much colleges fail to serve their students especially considering how much money they pay for their education whether it is from financial aid or out of their own pockets. That is one thing I was scared of coming into college, whether I was going to do well or not because I honestly struggle with school. I was always told how ruthless college was going to be compared to high school. How much easier it is to fail a class in college compared to high school.

Being in the middle class is not enough, people can barely make ends meet. People in the middle class do not even consider themselves being apart of the middle class.

This article glamorizes putting people into the middle class when that is the group that struggles with income inequality.

This sentence is really interesting to me. Colleges exist to give you a higher education help give you a degree, when in reality, the tuition rate is getting high and people in lower income families can't keep up with paying so students drop out with debt. All you do is pay the tuition, do all work and pass your classes and then you earn you degree. You don't really learn anything. I remember talking with a friend and he said that he has spent 3 years in college not really learning anything and considered dropping out, but he can't because he is already deep in debt and leaving would just make it worse because he can't pay it off.

It is so hard for anyone to go to college if they are low income, whether they have family who attended college or not, whether they receive financial aid or not. There are so many factors that play into it, but a main one being money. Money makes the world go round, and thats the sad reality. Low income families cannot afford to send their children to college because they can barely even afford to pay rent most of the time, they live day by day a lot of the time, a college savings account is almost unheard of for low income families. And college is at an all time high, it is ridiculously expensive even for PUBLIC schools, most US families cannot afford it, and the government does not fund public universities enough. Which only then leads for lower income families to continue the cycle of no education and poverty, and continue the middle/upper classes on top. The cycle repeats.

not everyone who enrolls into a university/college is able to finish due to obstacles that they come across

thats somthing that people too this dont know that its really real

thats another way that getting to know eachother

the more the more you stress

thats what they dont tell students from the start

im needed to do the same basically

well maybe they didnt know how to mange their time

so that's 80% on homework and 20% on academic time?

I relate so hard to "working more hours" and "commuting"; but most of all "social media vying for attention". I have heard that smart phone companies are going to make their products more addicting.

Because I don't live on-campus or in the city, I have to go the extra mile and really put myself out there to REALLY be a part of the community

This is helpful for colleges to do. Although, it might feel rushed for some people

I don't think exploring our choices is a bad thing, it could be a learning experience. I believe college is an introduction to adult hood (besides puberty), students should be able to explore and experiment, and colleges should assist them. College nowadays leaves no room for students to make mistakes. It's expensive, and on top of that-- I believe the college system could be better. However, this phrase makes me think that Tom Sugar doesn't believe in the students. We need to find ourselves and what we want to do with our lives. Having a college advisor on our ass steering us in the right direction the whole time interfere with our decision making choices.

this is true for me, I do want flexibility to take as many classes as possible because I have seen a lot of interesting classes that is not related to my major

i wonder if some sf state's prerequisite is only in the fall? that would be a problem to those who are already behind on their major requirements

this analogy is very lovely

that's unfortunate alright

its unfair how college advisors tell low-income students to do community then transfer for the interest of money but the students ended up spending more than they were told just to make up the unacceptable credits

damn, if I wasn't working and I got hella grants. I'd be taking 18 units right now

this is great, students can then focus on their studies more

I, too, also worry about money. I work on average 18 hours a week. However, I carefully planned my workdays to fit right into my school schedule so it isn't too bad.

I do be studying a whole lot too, so I think I'm good.

college is so expensive now, it's crazy.

I relate to this so hard. If it wasn't for my grants and scholarships, I don't think I'd be able to go to college. Also, if it takes me more than four years to graduate and I don't have the fund for another year, I would drop out too.

oh man this sucks:(