Larau showed that typically the wealthier families took the concerted cultivation approach and the child, typically, did better in schools. While the lower income families had more of the natural growth approach and the child usually does not do as well, as the child was raised to not really care as much about education, leaving the child less prepared for college. But this statistic about people from a poor background is increasing in attendance in colleges, would go against what Larau said. If it is true that people from a poor background that are commonly raised through natural growth process, with education is not being valued as much, why would there be a surge in attendance in colleges then? Is it actually because the family is not necessarily acting as the primary agent of socialization when the family is taking a backseat in the natural growth process, and the role of the peers that the child hangs around with and education system play a larger role. When I say