Children from poor families are "unfit to study literature and history", right?

This view is quite right. Dr. William Pannapak of Harvard University once summed up what kind of talents are suitable for literature and history research in the United States. His answer is as follows: 1. You have money, you don't need to rely on others, and you don't need to earn money to support yourself or others. 2. You come from a small circle family with rich academic contacts, and you will definitely find a place for you in the future. You can rely on your spouse to provide the income and welfare needed for family life. 4. You are studying for the degree you need for your job, such as a high school teacher, or the company pays you to study. he said

"These people are people who can study for a doctorate in liberal arts with confidence. Anyone else who does this will face great personal risks. They can't measure the full consequences of this choice because they don't understand the recruitment system of universities or don't want to listen to those who try to tell them the truth. " Compared with Europe, the United States has always been famous for its brutal competition and imperfect social security. However, as we all know, the basic welfare guarantee in the United States is much better than that in China. The quality education resources of universities far exceed those in China. This is true in the United States, not to mention China. Of course, "shouldn't" doesn't mean "can't", nor does it mean that you can't study literature and history if you are poor. Careful, careful, careful again. You must know what price you may pay for it. For me, if I don't do academics, I can't think of any other meaning in life. This is the choice I made after much deliberation.