Summary Of The Danger Of Telling Poor Kids That College Is The Key To Social Mobility

In the essay "The Danger of Telling Poor Kids That College Is the Key to Social Mobility" written by Andrew Simmons, he states that poor and wealthy college students should both be "sold" the same motivational idea. His idea is that rather than poor people focusing of making money, they should focus on an intellectual awakening similar to what wealthier students are able to focus on. Although Simmons raises a strong argument, I do not believe it is effective when trying to motivate poor students such as the black and Latino kids that live in Inglewood and West Adams in Los Angeles. Throughout my essay I will discuss why poor students and wealthy students motivational factors differ greatly.
The author argues that by focusing on the economic benefit, educators risk distracting students from the importance of the academic process itself. However, students of different socioeconomic backgrounds have different motivational factors. A study conducted by Stanford University in 2015 researched this particular topic. Five hundred-seventy students from different universities, ethnicities, and financial backgrounds were asked what motivates them to do well in school? Based on their results, low-income students were highly motivated by the

financial aspect of a career rather than the social impact. On the other hand, the wealthier the student was the less they cared about how much they made when they graduated. Students from wealthy background had a much more intellectually curious mind frame and cared more about the academic process itself rather than how much they made after graduation. This study proves that Simmons argument cannot change someone’s deeply rooted ambitions.
Simmons states that it is wrong to view intellectual curiosity secondary to financial security.

However, living in a low-income area in Chicago, I experienced firsthand what motivates poor individuals trying to make ends meet. What motivated a student to do well in school was imagining a future where they did not have to choose between buying milk and buying bread. They were motivated by the prospective of having a decent paying job that moved them out of poverty and away from danger. They talked about the wealthy neighborhoods and how one day if they worked hard in school they can live amongst them. Students and parents from neighborhoods in Chicago and Los Angeles focus on making a living rather than making a difference in the

community.
My motivations during school were not to help and change my community, but find ways to improve my lifestyle. My career choice was based on the financial aspect instead of making a difference in the world. My drive to do well in school was thinking about how I can pay my school loans while continuing to support my family. The difference between a wealthy student and a poor student is that wealthy students select their careers based on their hobbies or pleasures, while the poor students are forced to choose a career that pays well even though they might not see it as pleasurable. It is challenging for a poor student to think about his/her neighborhood and how to improve it when there is so much pressure thinking about their own personal situation.
In conclusion, while Simmons tries to argue that we can change this socioeconomic dynamic, I strongly believe that it is not possible. We are already shaped by the time we get to college. It is deep rooted in our character and personality. Our experiences force us to be motivated by different goals - whether financial or not.