I was always taught to accept and respect people's differences, instead of simply acknowledging or being aware them. Or rather, this was something that was built in has a norm and was implied for us to engage with this sort of behaviour. Furthermore, my homeroom teacher stressed ideas such as completely omitting the use of "them" from our lexicon to dismantle the us vs. them dialectic. Beyond that, instead of focusing on "[coping]...with so much difference," we were taught to focus on where we relate and have common ground, which invites inclusion and dismisses divisive thoughts.

I guess, as it stands, the idea of combining cultures like the way the melting pot does in the US is simply all cultures coming together to become more "White."

This reminds me of an experience I had in high school where one of the teachers were the complete opposite. He was extremely woke. Some of my friends and I put together a band act to perform for halloween. We were going to perform a popular halloween song called "Spooky Scary Skeletons," but he stopped us, claiming that the word "spooky" had deeply racist connotations and were historically meant to degrade Black people. Yet, no one I knew was aware of this. In the end, it was ruled out that since we had no ill intent, we could perform the song. I am still shocked about this incident to this day.

I find it interesting how even in the same country, and even if you assume that all schools provide equal resources and opportunities, you will learn in completely different ways and even completely different ideas. Some teachers bring in biases to the classroom that might influence how students grow up thinking. Many times I have had teachers slip and share their political view on a particular current event that could render some of the class uncomfortable.

When I moved from Canada to the U.S., I came to a realization that shook me awake. I had been doing great in school back home in Canada, and suddenly found myself behind in the hyper-competitive Bay Area educational system. I was placed in 9th-grade physics without even having any prior experience working on quadratics, while I saw 8th graders who were in the same class preparing for AP Calculus BC. That summer, instead of seeking internships or building my resume, I spent months just to get ahead in math. It was not a matter of motivation, neither student nor instructor could whip up a sufficient why, but of access. This was not a knowledge lag so much as it was a structural deficit in the guise of academic rigour.

To experience success in life, it doesn't always mean that you have to be successful in college. However, the connections you make can always be a telling indicator to how well you might fare in the future. What matters most at top universities are the connections you make with faculty, visitors, and students. These connections would then likely present opportunities that those at an average university (even if they have a perfect GPA or an impressive resume) might never see.

As I mentioned in the previous reading as well, legacy admission is one of the most obvious cases where wealthier students have an advantage in the education system. Sometimes priority is given to children who have had family members attend or teach at a certain university, instantly disregarding first-generation and the vast majority of low-income students. From my experience, as my father attended Stanford, before California banned legacy admissions just recently, I had a whopping 10x greater chance of being admitted to the university.

I find it interesting how trades are seen as lesser in the States. In Germany, many students opt to take the apprenticeship route and work in trades instead of committing to a more specialized field in university like we do here. What's more is that working in trades is respectable as well. This passage is also implying that jobs will always be "bad" as you will always have to work under an employer that can set a limit on your salary if you don't pursue a profession where you have more control over your career.

Too many times I have heard of cases where high-achieving students that are more than qualified and thus are accepted to elite universities are forced to decline the offer because they were not offered any aid and have to choose a safety school that offered them aid or scholarships (or worse, a community college). I would say this is arguably worse than being outright rejected.

Environment truly does matter. In a space where academic rigour is strictly supervised and students are all equally as engaged in their studies, it pushes like-minded students to be inspired and motivated by one another. Schools backed with more funding, even public ones, imply that parents have a hand in implementing new programs, and financing new state-of-the-art facilities. In private schools, a step further. Oftentimes we hear how universities have endowment funds that help finance new departments, buildings, and professors. Some private high schools also do too. For instance, Phillips Exeter Academy has an endowment of $1.6 billion as of last year. A high school.

Failing at public schools before college means that they would likely never have access to higher education, where most of the high-paying jobs require. Thus, the vicious cycle continues where the system beats down on the underprivileged demographic, where meritocracy is nowhere to be seen.

Time and time again, we see that those who are more privileged are favoured the most. One of the most obvious cases would be legacy admissions at the most selective of universtities.

This is funny to me because I always hear cases where public schools are underfunded and lack resources to provide certain courses or even college counselors (for college application prep) that help students pursue higher education. One's experience at a public school is also greatly impacted by where one lives. For instance, if your area code is in a more affluent neighbourhood like Palo Alto, you might get large auditoriums, better teachers, unique programs and opportunities, among other aspects that are far superior to the average public school.

A powerful concept indeed, but in my experience, a concept that is often presented to children in a way that creates a false reality in that they expect or assume that putting in the work equates to the success they envision. We are sold a vision and goals that make up the ideal American dream to strive for, yet the mechanics of our nation (of course, including the education system, or institutions), fail in many ways to provide equal or equitable opportunities and resources to all. Families who are "underprivileged" (whether in a racial, financial, or another social sense) are left to fend for themselves in a system that is inherently established to work against them.

It is valid to not care about school when school teaches students only to favor American culture, to become an obedient and productive member of society, blind to all other cultures including their own.

The student-to-teacher ratio at public schools are very high, so why is that schools have the right to force upon assimilation onto their students, when the — aptly termed from one of our earlier readings in place of racial minorities — global majorities outnumber that of the faculty. And even then, the majority of their names should be common or easy to pronounce.

Subtractive schooling will always be at work as long as students are encouraged to assimilate with American culture. The lack of representation and even subtle negative associations to their own unique cultures is only destroying the valuable diversity needed for an America that is entirely compliant and standard from within.

To think that three generations have passed since Texan Mexican Americans immigrated to America and half of the children drop out is definitely demonstrates incompetence in the schools. Teachers and administrators are to blame for not being able to observe the hardships and unique circumstances that cause the students to show a lack of care for teachers, rules, and school.

That is an absurd statistic. I wonder if the funding for all four years of education are equal or distributed in relation to the number of students enrolled per grade. More funding should definitely be diverted towards first-year resources for quality instruction.

Achievement in life starts with achievement at school. This idea of downward assimilation shows how racial minorities are barred from receiving the care needed to thrive in academia. At the fundamental level, school should be responsible in teaching students about the way the world works around them, ultimately allowing the minorities to assimilate and/or break out of poverty. I am interested to see what Valenzuela has in mind to combat this subtractive schooling.

I believe that the teachers' thinking is backwards here; I agree with the students. Yes, students should be held accountable for their own education, and from teacher's standpoint, students should show up excited to learn about what they are teaching. All teachers need to do is to show at the beginning that they are passionate about teaching as well as supporting the students (plus they are getting paid), and the students will be able to reciprocate that passion back to their studies. From some students' perspective, learning is a chore, and if the teacher were to leave a first impression that they do not care about the students, then even those passionate to learn will feel less inclined to care about school.

As long as racial connotations in society do not change, it would be foolish to be "color blind." Though in a perfect world, all children would receive equal guidance and attention, children of different cultures, as addressed in one of the previous sections, need support that is catered specific to their situation. Though it is discriminatory to give unequal levels of help to children of different backgrounds, it is also discriminatory to turn a blind eye to their circumstances.

This stereotype of Asians being perfect students lies largely in a culture where parents hold expectations where nothing short of perfect satisfies the requirement. This stereotype is so ingrained that, in my experience, Asians have learned to believe in it more than non-Asians. My Asian friends always think I can easily self-study and get As without effort, but it is my non-Asian friends who would understand that I am not perfect, pointing out my flaws and giving constructive feedback.

Yet, they are encouraged by society and family to inherit the existing idea of how things are "supposed" to be. It would take generations of people that oppose the concept of race to break the centuries-old mold of inequalities, favoritism, and stereotypes.

Respectfully, I do not resonate with this strategy. However, this strategy is reflective of America's as a nation. As a melting pot of cultures, cultures merge together to form one. This strategy leads to a loss of diversity and tradition. An alternative solution is when we look at a Canadian mosaic, where instead of a melting pot, there is a cultural mosaic, where cultures coexist in a way that supports each other, functionally embracing its diversity and maintaining their distinct traditions.

I can recall several occasions where I was on a voice call with a stranger for a video game, and they asked if I was White because I sounded White, or Black because I sounded Black. I questioned why they thought that and they simply replied that I just gave that impression. When I was in middle school, there was a phase where I forced myself to sort of enculturate, in a sense, with my friends by listening to rap and pop music, because I had a fear of not knowing the lyrics when the song came on the radio or not being up-to-date with the trends.

I have had a conversation a few times with my friends addressing this matter of "having a life" outside of staying at home on the computer. White kids are labeled to have "a life," meaning they often go out with their friends (in the context of this reading, most likely other white kids) and have the time and luxury to enjoy leisures that kids of color would rather opt not to do. It is not as much a matter of socioeconomic status than a matter of having an outlet that reduces the chances of awkward and undesirable physical social interactions.

Though race is a myth, a biological fabrication, racism is very real with very real social implications. Black people dominate on news headlines related to crime and violence, which is very showing in how race connotes violence. The concept of race was a product of trying to categorize the new and previously unknown during the age of colonialism. Black youths witnessing time and time again the unfair treatment Black people face opens their eyes to the established social, economic, and political meanings tied to their race.

Growing up in Canada, I almost never ran into a situation where an identifiable group of exclusively white/black/asian/etc students sitting together. The ease of crossing racial boundaries described in the following paragraph lasted throughout basically all of my academic life. My friends I sat with at lunch were Asian, African-American, White, and Hispanic. It is sad to read about divisions that form in the classroom due to the societal association of status with racial identity, even between classmates who are familiar with one another.

I am surprised to learn of the prevalence of violence around this area. Up-to-date statistics show that Irvine is one of the, if not, safest cities in the US.

This speaks to the widening income gap unfolding on a national scale, but I am also excited to read on this as it is relevant to this area.

My most memorable and favorite teachers and professors are always those who are most noticeably passionate. Not necessarily kind and forgiving, but inspiring. Teachers hold the highest authority over students in the room as they have the power to determine grades and by extension, their future success, thus it should be a responsibility to inspire the next generation to be the best they can be.

I remember reading out loud on passages that contained slurs and carefully skipping over them. It would sometimes interest me to see if my peers would even skip over insults and swear words they deemed too offensive.

This idea of participation intrigues me. Some schools don't grade on participation, while others do. My teachers always graded on participation and stressed the importance of participation and office hours to the point of second nature. I feel that participation is the key to active learning but also leaving impressions on the teacher for good recommendation letters.

I see where he is coming from. Social media nowadays depicts that traveling and doing all sorts of cool things as the norm, which in reality, just isn't true. FOMO and jealousy just overflows from social media.

The idea that children are exposed to racism at such a young a young age is appalling to me. I was lucky attend school of great diversity that lessened the chances of racist confrontations. Especially, when I was in Canada, the welcoming and open-minded atmosphere was highly resistant to racism — to the point where if slurs were made, we wouldn't know to be offended by it. There was a word my friends and I would use all the time in Canada that is absolutely taboo in the US, something I regret not knowing earlier as it costed the loss of several meaningful relationships.

This an important point. Numbers from tests being the leading factor that defines the preferability of a student over another is a close-minded social phenomena. Since the end goal nowadays is to attain higher education, why is it that colleges don't try harder to collect data on the these aspects? Are essays and recommendation letters sufficient?

I think this chart is very revealing in the correlation between culture and socioeconomic status as it pertains to achievement in school. While racial minorities tend to perform lower than that of white students, who are typically the education system's subject of favoritism and lead on socioeconomic status, Asian Americans cultural stereotype for maintaining straight A's, "practicing 40 hours a day," and become doctors, etc. speaks loudly.

I remember in high school I was trying to establish an ultimate frisbee club with a friend of mine, but his parents insisted he would create a club that would be more appealing to colleges. It's interesting that even now in college, we have to study greatly on what classes and professors to look out for.

It would be interesting to know how today's data would compare to the racial disparity mentioned here. I am aware that most prestigious colleges are trying to promote and advertise ethnic diversity among students.

I relate to this wholeheartedly. The academic rigor is far greater in private schools, because the environment is one where few have to worry about anything else except wanting to succeed. One time, my school invited back some alumni to talk about their experiences in college, and those who went to Harvard claimed that the english program at my high school was far more demanding than that of Harvard's. Here I am, taking twenty to thirty units worth of courses, and still do not feel the same level of academic rigor as I did in high school.

I never really thought about the track for taking math in high school because I thought, like most other core subjects, math was standardized for everyone. In my case though, I knew from the moment I got to high school that I was far behind my classmates, most of whom were taking calculus or already took a year of calculus by freshman year.

I can speak to this hectic lifestyle. Back when I was in middle school and early high school, as extracurriculars, I would take Chinese, Japanese, and French classes. For music, I would have private lessons, group classes, orchestra, music theory, and piano. I still somehow had time to be coached on ultimate frisbee, speed skating, and be on my school's sports teams. All of this, I did weekly. Looking back, I have no idea how I pulled this off.

The earlier readings stressed the importance of having high quality early education – something like every dollar spent on educating students saves eight dollars of crime-related expenses. I also believe it is just important to have a strong relationship with one's parents. Families with lower incomes may never be able to see their parents for long periods of time as they are always working overtime (of course, there are upper class parents that opt to work more, but I digress).

The concept of mental health became more apparent to me in high school as my school was trying to break the stigma. Society has long been conservative on the idea of mental health and discard it as myth. Especially during the pandemic, with students staying at home, the impact of mental health problems become more and more shielded from the public eye, while mental health problems continue to grow across the nation. As for antisocial behavior, I noticed social life online correlates heavily with social life in-person. Those who have less to do in real life, have less content or unique stories to post or share, and are thus unable to gain more relationships apart from pre-existing ones.

I think that this widening gap between kindergarteners and 5th graders only makes sense. As children grow older, they learn to realize and understand any struggles their family may have, but also, laying a concrete foundation for math is very important. In my late middle school years, I still failed to perform the most basic of operations accurately and efficiently, which made it difficult for me to move on to the more complicated concepts. This became especially apparent to me when I realized how true understanding comes from being able to active recall and teach learned topics. A peer of mine was able to explain an extremely complicated linear algebra idea to me in three digestible sentences, something that would take an average professor lessons to cover.

I have several experiences that resonate with this claim, and I do agree. I know of teachers and professors that teach poorly to their younger and less experienced counterparts because they are tenured or know they won't be fired. Even in prestigious colleges like Harvard, professors are not all necessarily as good. Most of them are old, and there is a waitlist for prospective professors that is so long, that by the time they get off, are as old as the ones they replace. Thus, it is a battle for reputation, not skill. For example, if we look at another equally prestigious institution such as Caltech, they have way more young professors (implying less experience), and students are able to achieve similar levels of success upon graduation.

I love this feeling of excitement, because learning new and opposing sides of arguments allow us to learn the most. There were certainly moments in class discussions where I felt uncomfortable to share my thoughts for fear of being judged and even reprimanded.

I certainly relate to this feeling. Children inherit the idea of and feelings tied to race from their parents and the society they are brought up in. Fortunately, when I spent my elementary years in Canada, the nation's generalized open-minded outlook allowed me to be ignorant of that concept until I was older. For further perspective, helping refugees (ex. writing cards, sending care packages, creating food drives, donating clothes, etc.) was a common practice in the two schools I went to.

I think that this idea is especially relevant for students in the past few years. During the pandemic, the lack of personal connection lowered motivation to learn and thus participate in online discussions.

I find this point about unlearning racism intriguing. My high school celebrated an inclusive and progressive environment - to the point where I felt was too much, too woke. One time I was submitting lyrics to the faculty for the song we were going to perform onstage for Halloween. It was a popular song: "Spooky Scary Skeletons." However, we were almost cut from the performance because the lyrics included "Spooky," and the stem "spook" held historically racial connotations, which probably no one in this day and age can recall and pull offense from it.

One of the pressures I felt when applying to colleges was being a legacy student. My father was a professor at a prestigious university. I knew a number of professors and philanthropists there, was childhood friends with the kid of one of the board members, and so on. I ended up feeling some sort of inexplicable guilt for having such privileges, giving my spot up for someone else. Being a legacy gives a prospective student basically bumps up your chances of admission by five times.

I have encountered numerous students attending public high schools as juniors and seniors that have never heard of UC applications and the Common App. This came to me as an absolute shock, and was not hesitant to help them out on their applications. I am simply appalled there isn't even a half-hour session reserved to give high school students a heads up for what to expect in the near future.

This question hits home for me. My middle school years were completed in Canada, where education was far less competitive than that of the Bay Area. When I moved, I was surprised to find that I had went from the top of the class in Canada into almost rock bottom in the US. I took physics in 9th grade and realized how underprepared I was. I didn't even know what quadratics were when I heard my fellow classmate, an 8th grader, was about to take the AP for Calculus BC. I had to carve out an entire summer a year later just to catch up to my peers in math, wasting valuable time that most would have spent on internships, studying for standardized tests, volunteering, pursuing passion projects and doing extracurriculars that would greatly add to their application portfolio determining their college admissions.

However, these "12 years of free schooling" do not offer free access to courses teaching economics and other means of making money, so how is it that people can just assume students can escape poverty?

I feel that this statement is not entirely true. Those who are able to make an impact on the education system are mainly those with high positions in the government, implying that they are either already well-educated or living with a comfortable socioeconomic status, thus have less of an incentive to think about others less fortunate. Also, it is important to note that that those unable to afford better education often have priorities that scream at their faces that only seems right to tackle first (ex. mortgage, loans, and basic needs such as food, safety, etc.).

The nation's department of education operates at a federal level, implying that policymakers will always tend to adopt ideas of reform that will address the greatest number of people, maximum effect with minimum effort. However, the profuse factors undermining the quality of education vary from one neighbourhood to another. Reforms must be carried out case-by-case, though time consuming; there just isn't a one-size-fits all remedy for the entire nation.

In high school, I came to realize that where a child calls home is plays a huge role in determining the quality of education they will receive, as a single variance in an area code will restrict families from allowing their children to attend the well-funded public school just across the street.

I find this quite interesting to know. I always hear from the media and hearsay about how "Americans are getting dumber," yet I am always surprised by some of my friends at how much they have achieved at an age far younger than mine. Though, it is irrefutable fact that the race to attain the best of what higher education can offer is far more competitive, to the point where admissions are no longer based on skill, legacy, nor affluence, but on luck.

Many associate the achievement of the American dream with ownership of a nice home, car, and other forms of material wealth. This begs the question, if the goal of achieving the American dream lies so snug in the notion that one must assume a great fortune, then why does the pre-higher education curriculum lack in educating students about economics. Worse, the general curriculum, in my experience, tends to value test-taking and memory skills over the much more valuable skill of learning how to learn, such that once thrown in the rapidly-evolving real world, young adults will be able the confidently navigate through unfamiliar adversities.

However, the harsh reality is that for the vast majority who do not have the opportunities to begin with, have little resources, knowledge, and opportunities to pass on to their children to equip them with the tools of succeeding the American dream.