European, here. I often hear the idea (in tech&internet domains) that someone has what he deserves. Specifically, if you are badly considered : it's your fault, not the fault of the perpetrator. But again, don't try to ask them to change the way they treat you, because you will be seen as a victim - and they don't like feeling guilty. 

It is somehow the essence of privilege : having it, enjoying it and being able not to be responsible for it. I don't know how to respond to it, but by playing by their rules (and trying to avoid falling in the inevitable traps on the way).

Lisa, do you let your students call you "Doctor"?

A while back, in a post of test prep for kindergarten entrance exams, I criticized the idea that we should all be trying to help our children “get a head start.” Get a head start over who?

Lisa Wade, given the fact that the USA Republican party campaigns on the promise to cut or end social & educational programs, and given that one program that has faced Republican opposition is called "Head Start", I think your criticism of the phrase "head start" is very unfortunate. For the record, parents/guardians who enroll their children in Head Start programs aren't trying to give their children a head start over other children.  Here's some information about the USA Head Start Program from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program :"The Head Start Program is a program of the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent involvement services to low-income children and their families.
Launched in 1964 by its creator and first director Jule Sugarman, Head Start was originally conceived as a catch-up summer school program that would teach low-income children in a few weeks what they needed to know to start kindergarten. Experience showed that six weeks of preschool couldn't make up for five years of poverty. The Head Start Act of 1981 expanded the program. The program was further revised when it was reauthorized in December, 2007. Head Start is one of the longest-running programs to address systemic poverty in the United States."...

I would say its a head start on your life, not a head start versus other people. By starting school early you're benefiting yourself. If you wish you could imagine that you are benefiting yourself versus an imaginary you that delayed starting school for a year.

Also that post about tea says that it takes one day to hand roll 17 ounces. That amount of tea would make about 200 cups so its not really all that much work. In this case, the time it takes to prepare the pearl tea for one cup is on the order of the time it takes to drink one cup.

I'm conflicted on this.  On the one hand, yes, those with privilege are always being encouraged to take more and get a leg up on everyone else, when they already have a leg up.  But "privilege" in a social or economic way is very hard to measure.  I went to private school most of my childhood life, explicitly to get a "leg up."  My parents and grandparents orchestrated this mostly because, in my demographics (black on one side, children of immigrants on the other), none of my family prior to my parent's generation HAD an opportunity to get a leg up.  We were at the bottom, with no opportunity to be even comfortable or afforded the "rights" we supposedly deserved.  My parents had the opportunity, but no idea how to chase it.  And I'm not a unique or special case.  I went to school (yes, private school; scholarships exist) with people on food stamps, people who's parents couldn't even read, and even one or two kids who were completely homeless for long stretches of time.  Head starts aren't only for the upper middle class white parents to make sure their kids hold on to their status, it's for people who actually need them to keep up in the world as well.  Many people advocate for a society like those in many European countries where equality, not excellence, is encouraged in places like schools.  Well, is we were all relatively equal already....yes!  That's nice!  Why don't we?  The issue is, the United States is inherently unequal.  We do not have a uniform ethnic population devoid of more than token strife.  We have one of the most unequal socio-economic economies in the realm of the first world.  We have an undercurrent of sexism that shows no signs of leaving.  Many of the people aspiring for head starts and legs up are ethnic minorities, women, and those with limited financial means.  If this attitude was aimed exclusively at upper class white men, well, sure, maybe.  But among groups other than that, a leg up isn't an aspiration to be better than others....it's an aspiration to have chances, at all.

I find it interesting that the ad uses a woman and a girl, as well.  Another group that does need a head start just to keep up at all.  If this was an advertisement for tutoring or preschool, I'd say the implication wasn't just "hold on to your class privilege," it would be also "make you're your daughter doesn't get screwed by the patriarchal system."

Doesn't nearly everyone want to lead a "privileged" life, in the sense that they don't want to have to struggle for basic needs like food and shelter, they want to do work they enjoy, have at least some luxuries, be successful in whatever way they define that term, etc?

I'm not saying that "the pleasures and comforts of being on the top are things that we should enjoy without qualms".  But I think most people would like to lead relatively "privileged" lives. 

And I can't help pointing out that your criticizing the notion of "privilege" from, well, a rather privileged position.  Do you enjoy the privileges that come with having a PhD and being a professor at a college?  Or do you think we can just pluck anyone off the street to do your job?  (Btw, I have a PhD myself and know that you're not likely raking in the big bucks in academia.  But, you know, there is some prestige involved in having attained the educational rank and professional position you have, and while you're probably not living large you're also not likely scraping the bottom of the economic barrel, either.  Just sayin').

I find it interesting the way some readers have interpreted this article. I think the author was referring to the phrase (and subsequent ideology of) "getting a head start," not "The Head Start Program". Very different things. 
I don't think the author is implying that people don't want privilege, but that privilege itself means having what others do not have."To stretch the analogy, taking someone else's cookie to get ahead is wrong, or telling someone else that they can't go bake any because then they would catch up with you. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing extra work to advance yourself in hopes of being ahead of where you, and everyone else was yesterday."

^^ I don't understand this comparison. The author is not saying that people shouldn't ever do extra work to advance themselves. The opportunity to do extra work is in itself an act of privilege. So to use your baking example, one could bake to "catch up" with everyone else, but who is paying for the ingredients? Or what about the time involved? A kid who has a nanny and has no chores or responsibilities has more time to practice baking than a kid whose parents work full time and they may have to take care of their younger siblings, help prepare dinner, etc.

Lets take tutoring (outside of school, paid for out of pocket) for example. I don't think the author is saying no one should hire a tutor for their kids, but she is more so pointing out the fact that if you do this your child has a privilege that other students do not have. Everyone is so focused on putting their child in first place, regardless of the fact that other children are left behind. If most of the students in a class take tutoring lessons outside of school, the expectations of learning capabilities increase. But those children who cannot afford extra lessons appear "stupid" because they are "taught the same thing as everyone else in the class, but just can't seem to grasp the concepts".. but they aren't taught the same things as they have had extra help outside of the classroom. Giving your child a "head start" or "leg up" means your child has a privilege that other students do not have.

Also, in regards to what I interpret as personal attacks against the author.. what gives? Anyone is allowed to be critical of privilege. Just because she has a phd doesn't mean she can't understand this concept because "her life is too privileged". That makes no sense and I would bet none of you know anything about her personal life to make such a statement. That argument is so flawed, everyone on this message board clearly has privilege.. you have the luxury of having a computer, internet access, the time to sit here and read these blogs, like common.

I think you have to be careful with your logic here. 

First of all, you cannot criticize people for seeking what is in their best interest.  We all do this, indeed it is deeply ingrained in our nature.  The sensible point of debate and criticism is what behavior / goals are in a given person's best interest, and what *should* be.  The second point is important because we as a community can shape it.  For example, at present it is in many people's best interest to become MDs, because MDs are well-compensated and have high social status and receive other psychological rewards from their work.  We could, as a community, refuse to pay them high wages, disparage and ridicule, and otherwise attempt to diminish the psychological rewards of being an MD, and less people would become MDs because it would serve fewer people's interests to do so.

To attain the high level of well-being our economy affords, an efficient allocation of human resources is crucial.  That is, it is crucial that people with innate acumen amenable toward being an MD feel incentives that encourage them to develop those talents and try to become MDs, as opposed to leave that potential dormant and decide to clean toilets instead.  Our economy attempts to achieve this without coercion by offering rewards, mainly financial and in terms of social status.  In this context it is natural and good that MDs get paid more, and have high social status, as a means of attracting and developing the appropriate talent.  (Of course we can debate whether we should pay more, to attract more talent, or pay less, so more talent is available for other professions.)  
 
What is bad, from the community perspective, is when individuals attempt to bypass free competition in a way that gives them an advantage that would not translate to better performance at the job.  An obvious example is people cheat on their MCAT exams.  By this means, they attain access to limited resources devoted toward developing MD talent that, from the perspective of society as a whole, would be better devoted to other, better-suited candidates.  In a similar way, sexism is bad.  For example, allowing both men and women to compete as MDs increases the talent pool of MDs, compared to if only men were allowed to compete.  I think this is the context of your post.

It's a bit subtle, though.  For example, one can pay lot of money to take classes and thereby improve MCAT scores.  This might be in a very targeted way, like taking a Kaplan course, or it might be less targeted, like attending a more competitive university or taking harder university classes or simply studying more.  Obviously we want people to do at least some of these things.  Indeed, insofar as any of these things translate to higher MCAT scores in correlation with translating with ultimately becoming a better MD, they are good.  The subtle problem comes when access to these things is limited, in which case you run into a problem akin to the above-mentioned issue with not allowing women to get MDs, for instance.

Anyway, this is a long post but my point is this is a very nuanced issue, and I think you have to be careful about your choice of words.  I don't think it's a very thoughtful to disparage seeking "advantage" insofar as advantage corresponds to greater comfort, wealth, social prestige, or other things that society offers as rewards to incentivize desired behavior.  What you mean, I think, is "advantage" that seeks to undermine the fair competition for these things, which is bad insofar as in disincentivizes the desired behavior, or results in a misallocation of human resources.

Veering close to reductio ad absurdium, but isn't that The American Dream? To be the person at the top, having worked your way up and maintaining your wealth/privilege off the backs of others?

Capitalism tells us all to aspire to reach the top through hard work, etc, but to reach the top there has, by definition, to be swathes of people below you. 

Now I want to watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis again...

This brings to mind the entire, problematic issue of school finance.  As I understand it, states typically allow the wealthy to keep most of their money and, in order to justify giving money to poor schools, give more money to the wealthy.  In states where the laws have changed, indications are the wealthy become sore losers and cap the funding allowed, then shift their children into schools that somehow avoid the cap.

Yes, parents want their children to get ahead.  If they have money, chances are they will put that money towards their children's future.  There is nothing inherently wrong here - but when asked to contribute to the future of other children?  With a relatively limited sacrifice?  No interest.  The theory becomes "I earned this money and I should be the main benefactor."  It's the reason people whine about paying taxes - how do they think the interstate got there?  In Arizona, the snowbirds vote against funding schools because they are no longer using the system.  Yet we live with each and every one of these students, and they grow up to be our neighbors and coworkers.  Those who are let down by the system often end up costing more, so it isn't logical.  At this point it can only be called short-sighted. 

Getting ahead of people may be a lovely illusion, but you can't divorce yourself from the world around you.  I am constantly disgusted by people who cannot bring themselves to help others, but it might be more use to point out that they are creating additional problems for themselves.

What about the concept of a rising tide lifting all ships? I don't support quality education because it benefits my (nonexistent) children, I support quality education because a world that has quality education is better for me, personally, then the marginal benefit of having lower taxes.

One of the major things I've learned from Dr. Wade is that there is no reason to be ashamed of the areas in which I am privileged (like being able to eat peanuts), but also no reason to be ashamed of the areas in which others have privilege over me. 

Why can't we have a world where everyone is above average?

If the value I'm paying for in a product or service is strictly related to exclusivity and not something tangible it better be damned good. There's only so much money I'm willing to spend on my neurotic tendencies.