Asking for a friend:

[Coventina]

Which is more elitist?

1. Saying that anyone should be able to take Russian Literature if they want to.
2. Saying that poor people shouldn't waste their time taking Russian Literature.

TIA to anyone who responds

[PJMcK]

1. #2

It seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, some people wouldn't want to take Russian Literature!

[Coventina]

2. Yes, sorry if I didn't make that clear. Nobody should be forced to take Russian Lit.

[PJMcK]

3. Nah, you were clear

I was just being snarky!

Enjoy your weekend, Coventina!

[dhol82]

4. I will second number two

How could one be so obnoxious as to qualify what someone should study based on income?
Idiot thinking.

[Ms. Toad]

5. #2 is more elitist

#1 is oblivious to the reality of the lives of many poor people - "want to" is all well and good, but that assumes you have time/energy/resources to take Russian literature - or any luxuries - when the all encompassing focus for many poor people is putting food on the table and a roof over their heads.

#2 is paternalistic: I know, better than you, what is good for you, what might just be the joy that makes the rest of life bearable, etc.

[Coventina]

6. You make a very good point about #1

I suppose I should say "in regards to college students, of all income levels"

Some people attending college are very wealthy. And then there are the students at my college who are mostly on the lower end of the income scale. Some of them are homeless. We run a food bank out of our student services office.

There is a serious debate going on here that we advise such students to avoid taking classes or enrolling in programs that don't result in a tangible economic benefit.

It's a very contentious argument, so I was wondering what DUers think.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Ah - that makes it even clearer that #2 is elitist.

As to #1, at least for the term of college the immediate pressures of poverty are abated (not gone, but not as acute).

As an educational institution, I would expect the school to have access to studies that suggest that there is an economic benefit to a well-rounded education (including less-standard classes like Russian Literature). (I haven't actually seen such studies, but I'm pretty sure there is a correlation.)

And - it is even more paternalistic if it is the college telling them not to take such classes.

[Coventina]

8. Thank you for your honest opinion.

It really helps to know what people outside of academia think.

Right now, there is a real push to turn community colleges (like mine) into technical schools (nursing, welding, other trades, etc.) rather than having Liberal Arts programs (even if they do pay out in the long term). The idea / justification is that poor people need more money NOW, not four years down the road, so get them trained and out into the workforce as quickly as possible.

This is a nationwide debate in academia, not just at our own institution.

on edit: dumb typo

[Ms. Toad]

9. I'm actually in academia . . .

but it's not a debate at my institution (a law school).

It fits with a lot of other paternalistic ideas we have about poor people. It's the dichotomy between, "What would I, as a smart person, do if I theoretically needed money," - and when it is "my" money it comes with strings versus everyone deserves a bit of beauty and autonomy - especially when faced with the grinding, never-ending impact of poverty (even if it doesn't make objective economic sense).

[NCTraveler]

10. #2 as it is framed as a negative.

An action a group “shouldn’t” take. Without being part of any larger conversation in any way a very small change in #2 would make them almost identical. Take out “shouldn’t” and replace it with “probably don’t”.

[Coventina]

11. Can you expand on that?

The reason I give the example I do is because it was discussed at a meeting I attended today.

An English faculty member said (and this is as a direct a quote as I can remember), "As much as I'd like for poor students to take Russian Literature, they probably should not. It is not going to help them make more money."

On edit: Oh duh, forgot the most important part, he prefaced that by saying, "I think we're being elitist here. As much as I'd like for poor students...."

[NCTraveler]

12. The additional sentence makes it part of a larger conversation.

It’s still framed as a negative, an action one believes others shouldn’t partake in, but then follows it up with what would already be an assumption that can be made in #1. When poor, one often has very limited time that is better served focusing on needs. It doesn’t need to be spelled out or even insinuated in order to be a valid assumption in #1.