In an era where verbose indecipherable prose passes for intelligence among academics in the Humanities, Anthony Abraham Jack's The Privileged Poor is refreshingly clear, concise, and well argued. Though the title says Privileged Poor, Jack's research actually focuses on two disadvantaged groups. In Jack's terminology, the privileged poor refers to students from underprivileged backgrounds who managed to attend elite prep schools that prepared them for elite, Ivy-level colleges. The second group is the doubly disadvantaged, which are kids from underprivileged backgrounds who went straight from their underserved high schools to the world class campuses of America's elite colleges. In a nutshell, Jack's thesis is that these two groups are, to varying degrees, not fully equipped to navigate the system of an elite college and thus suffer poorer outcomes than their rich peers who, in addition to their financial advantages, have also been trained socially and culturally to smoothly navigate the spaces of an elite college. The essence of his thesis is captured in Jack's mantra throughout the book: "access is not inclusion," meaning that just because elite colleges are allowing underprivileged kids access to their campuses, it does not mean these kids are truly included in the "society" or "culture," so to speak, of the school. Rather, these underprivileged students remain marginalized along cultural, class, and racial lines.
So why the lukewarm rating? Well, Jack's thesis basically has four parts two it - four main arguments, if you will. The first two parts deal with cultural alienation, while the second two deal more with class alienation. Naturally, since culture And class are tied to race, issues of race also factor heavily into Jack's arguments and form a througline throughout the entire book.
Anyways, the first argument states that underprivileged kids suffer on campus from having to be around rich kids talking about rich things and flaunting their richness, etc. Of course, Jack is quick to point out that the majority of these rich kids are white, which is apparently the worst and most damaging kind of rich person to have to be around. In a phrase, the first argument is, as I stated above, one of cultural alienation.
The second argument is also cultural in nature. It states that there is a "hidden curriculum" at elite schools - namely, assertiveness in networking, forming connections, and ingratiating oneself to one's teachers - that rich kids have already learned prior to school that poor kids haven't. Because of this preparedness disparity, poor kids suffer worse outcomes at elite colleges than rich kids.
While I agree that such a hidden curriculum exists, and while I can sympathize with the feelings of cultural marginalization, I reject the notion that either of these first two arguments constitute actual barriers to student achievement. Rather, I think they smack of the kind of coddling of youth that I've noted as increasingly prevalent, and more importantly, increasingly unproductive. You can call me heartless or unwoke or blinded by privilege, but are we really led to believe that having to be around rich kids and having to ask your teachers for help count as actual issues? If your biggest problem is having to be around rich kids and having to learn what a syllabus is and having to go to your teachers office hours to ask for help, are you really that disadvantaged? How many among us would gladly trade places with these kids for a chance at an ivy league education, given the incredible advantages such an education provides for one professionally? I certainly would. I would even go so far as to say that counting as problems "being around rich kids" and "having to ask teachers for help" constitutes its own kind of privilege. If it is a problem, it's not even a first world problem. It's a step above. Now, to be fair, Jack does classify some of these students as privileged - hence the title - but I personally count the first two arguments as non-issues.
The third and fourth arguments I found much more convincing - indeed, irrefutable - because they deal with real material problems. Those problems are food scarcity and degrading manual labor. Regarding the first, there are kids at elite schools who are hungry. Whereas the rich kids have their meal plans and a bottomless supply of pocket money, the poor kids only have their meal plans. So, for example, when the cafeterias close over spring break, the poor kids literally don't have access to food. This is unconscionable.
The second issue pertains to a form of student labor called community detail. Using the crude language it deserves, this job literally consists of cleaning up the shit, piss, and puke in the student bathrooms. Most of the students who work community detail are poor and students of color. It is degrading, unfair, and, quite frankly, exploitative. Jack suggests that the schools could hire professional janitors, which is a good idea, though it still leaves the uncomfortable situation of someone cleaning someone else's shit. Which is why I love Jack's idea of having the students clean the bathrooms themselves. The rest of us clean our own bathrooms. Why can't they? Why subject one class of students to this humiliating practice?
I know this is a long review. If you've made it this far, thank you. I just wanted to explain my 3 star rating. The book appears to have been widely lauded, and I can fully acknowledge and understand why. I just think the first two parts of Jack's thesis are weak and the second two are rock solid.