This is what still concerns me now as a college student in the 21st century. I am privileged to come from a financially stable family, and I'm still deeply concerned about student debt or the possibility that a Bachelor's no longer carries the same weight/promise of a career to make the money spent on the degree worth it. It's unbelievable and disheartening to know that first-get and poor students are more likely to be weighed down with student debts and it's frustrating that the student debt issues are not entirely being recognized or approached.

It's crazy to think of how early in schooling is your college education influenced by. I personally remember taking a placement test in fifth grade to determine which students would be allowed to enroll in "honors" courses once we moved to the middle school. Most of my friends and I had been placed into both the honors math and English/History tracks, but I had one friend who was not placed into honors math. She had no lower scores than the rest of us did in the school year, but had forgotten some of the math we had learned earlier in the year, lowering her placement score and ultimately excluding her out of the honors track. By the time we reached high school, my friends who were placed in the honors track (based on a placement test we took in the fifth grade without any studying) were given the opportunity to take free extra classes to finish AP Calc A/B by junior year, while my friend, who was technically a year's level lower (since middle school) was now two years lower. It's just crazy the difference in opportunity and confidence this created for students onwhat we would be judged on in our college apps. Additionally, I had a lot of friends who were in the honors track and therefore took many APs in high school, but also plenty of friends who were never in honors and excelled in all of the APs they took. I think students should be able to elect taking "advanced" classes rather than being forced or excluded out of them, as that system contributes to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" that was mentioned earlier.

I was just talking about this with some friends the other day, but I think that teachers assessing "potential" in students is a ridiculous concept if it means those students will get certain privileges, access to materials, or separated from their peers. I understand that a lot of "gifted and talented" programs have the intention of providing students with the materials to excel, but I think not only can it be harmful for the selected students in setting too high of expectations or cutting them off socially from their peers, it also gives educators the authority to divide and inhibit other students from utilizing the same helpful materials that they clearly have. And what's the point in doing that?

Children of higher-income families have the resources to provide tutoring and are typically in more affluent school districts that help them succeed and get into "better" universities and jobs, continuing to highlight how socioeconomic status "stratifies" students.

I find it shocking that schools had so little funding that they had to turn to endorsements or being bought out by a private corporation to survive. Additionally, cutting sports, arts, and culture programs is something I believe (and I'm sure most people) should be avoided if possible, but the fact that many schools across the nation still need to do this seems to be a poor reflection of how well the country is actually providing a rich public education for its children. Instead of considering the sponsorships, for-profit buy-outs, and cutting programs as (temporary, if anything) solutions to this issue, I hope we can examine other long-term solutions to these situations that schools are in to make them go to such last-resort "solutions" in the first place.

I don't think it's any surprise that the US is a quite individualistic society in comparison to many other counties in the world. I personally don't feel too hopeful that the rhetoric that perpetuates individualism in our society will change, so I am curious to see what solutions may address these community inequalities/handicaps in education that we tend to neglect.

This reminds me of the debates about student loan debts. I understand that it's not the same situation, but do you think this logic would still be able to sway those against canceling (or at least working towards minimizing) student loan debts (for the better of the community, even if they've already paid off their taxes, don't have any, etc)?

Like it is mentioned later in this paragraph, I think it's so strange that in many of the "first-world countries" that America likes to compare itself to have established socialism-based welfare programs including public education, yet national healthcare programs--a welfare program, just the same--is so polarizing in the States.