Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 Aug 2018, 6:52 am

rayjays quote
Skeptics argue that the higher earnings that result from college degrees typically more than offset the added debt.


That's a fine argument. However, in nations where students don't graduate with student loan debt ....they get the benefits of the higher education without the anchor of debt.
Which is why social mobility is greater in those nations... Which is the whole point....
.
A child born into a poor family in Germany, or Denmark, who is academically gifted can go on to become a doctor, or an engineer when they graduate.... and make a very good living. PLUS they won't have the large debt that a child born into an American family will probably have accumulated over their academic career...

Plus, they'll have 4 weeks vacation, maternity leave and protections against employers firing them at will. If they decide to change employment, they won't need to worry about the portability of their health insurance either.



rayjay quotes Ricky
There is no evidence on offer from you that geographic diversity should be "normalized". Whatever you mean by that term


rayjay
Perhaps you should read the studies that you link?

I have. If you have, and find something in them about "normalizing" for geographic diversity ... then please quote and explain.
If you can't then admit it.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Aug 2018, 7:50 am

The situation is more complicated. The data indicates that 10% of kids from the lowest income quartile earn a bachelors degree by the time they are 24, 13% in the 2nd lowest income quartile, and 23% in the third lowest quartile as opposed to 54% in the highest income quartile. Obtaining a college degree is the best chance at social mobility so these data reflect a lack of social mobility.

https://www.@#$!.com/story/colle ... 2016-04-19

Most of the defaults happen at lower student loan debt levels. Students who get graduate degrees have low default levels. Students who have the highest debt student loan levels do not default very much. High student debt is not an impediment to social mobility as long as a student gets a high-paying job, which tends to happen when a student gets a graduate degree.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upsh ... -help.html

So one part of the picture is law and medical students (and MBAs and other students with post-graduate degrees) getting six figure student loan debts but able to handle it because many of them get high-paying jobs. Another part of the picture is low-income students struggling to work and pay for school and having difficulty getting through. And if they do not get through school then they are going to have difficulty paying back the loans. Students from higher-income households tend to at least get the degree.

https://talkpoverty.org/2016/05/02/why- ... -the-most/

RJ presented this picture of academically gifted poor students getting large amounts of student aid and not having a big problem financially getting through school. I'm sure that it's true for a few students. But the vast majority of poor students face more challenges getting through school because of financial difficulties.

But let's not paint this rosy picture of European countries. It at least used to be true in Germany that students got tracked into Gymnasium (college bound schools) from testing when they are ten. I don't know if that's changed. But my impression is that in the US you have more ability to go back later and try to get a better career. You get more of a second chance here than you do in many European countries.

There is more fluidity here, more of a chance for people who were not star students in high schools to go to college. But then there is less financial support.

The bottom line is the kids of top 25% income households are gobbling up the the bachelor's degreees and said degrees are the key to earnings potential. And social mobility.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 15 Aug 2018, 11:52 am

As I understand the European model there is more focus on identifying top academic performers and they get a cheap education. But we cast a wider net. There is a benefit to not pigeonholing talented people just because they did not perform well in high school. But of course if you have a wider net then you have more difficulty making sure every student gets all of the money they need. If you have a system that identifies top students and puts them in productive careers that is a efficient way of getting the most bang for the educational buck. But it leaves a lot of people locked out. Ours is a more free-wheeling system and leaves the gate open and lets people choose a major that may not be directly related to any career. So I would be wary of looking at Europe and saying what a great system they have. There are pluses and minuses to both systems.

But given the huge disparities in obtaining degrees based on income it would seem we could do more to focus on helping poorer students. Of course we don't know how much the failure to obtain degrees is based on educational issues prior to college (perhaps not bring as academically prepared because of educational disparities) but some combination of factors is causing this difference in getting degrees.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Aug 2018, 2:18 pm

freeman3
As I understand the European model there is more focus on identifying top academic performers and they get a cheap education. But we cast a wider net.[/quote
You sure this is true? ]
Considering all tertiary education, the US doesn't do well. 44th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... attainment

Although it rises to 11th when a 6 year degree is the level considered. (I guess this would be a masters).

The US university system is also pretty uneven. A degree from Harvard is not the same as a degree from Liberty University. And a degree from Trump University>?

Freeman3
The bottom line is the kids of top 25% income households are gobbling up the the bachelor's degrees and said degrees are the key to earnings potential. And social mobility.

After WWII, Universities had a real shake up. Any GI's (Well, white GIs) could get their University tuition paid. Up till then, University was really only available to the well off, or very qualified academics.
Inexpensive access, made Universities more competitive....
The question one needs to ask is who benefits from University being so expensive ?
1) Universities and private education companies.
2) Financial companies loaning money.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Aug 2018, 3:25 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill

Though blacks encountered many obstacles in their pursuit of G.I. benefits, the bill greatly expanded the population of African Americans attending college and graduate school. In 1940, enrollment at Black colleges was 1.08% of total U.S. college enrollment. By 1950 it had increased to 3.6%. However, these gains were limited almost exclusively to Northern states,

I am not saying that the climate was perfect in 1950, but the strides made by African-Americans because to the GI Bill is definitely a positive.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 16 Aug 2018, 3:52 pm

bbauska wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill

Though blacks encountered many obstacles in their pursuit of G.I. benefits, the bill greatly expanded the population of African Americans attending college and graduate school. In 1940, enrollment at Black colleges was 1.08% of total U.S. college enrollment. By 1950 it had increased to 3.6%. However, these gains were limited almost exclusively to Northern states,

I am not saying that the climate was perfect in 1950, but the strides made by African-Americans because to the GI Bill is definitely a positive.


Maybe that's when America was great. :grin:
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 16 Aug 2018, 4:10 pm

Are you channeling your inner Cuomo? :grin:
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Aug 2018, 7:05 am

bbauska
I am not saying that the climate was perfect in 1950, but the strides made by African-Americans because to the GI Bill is definitely a positive


lipstick on a pig...

The G.I. Bill aimed to help American World War II veterans adjust to civilian life by providing them with benefits including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans and financial support. African Americans did not benefit from nearly as much as White Americans. Historian Ira Katznelson argues that "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow".[1] In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.[2][3]
Additionally, banks and mortgage agencies refused loans to blacks, making the G.I. Bill even less effective for blacks.[4] Once they returned from the war, blacks faced discrimination and poverty, which represented a barrier to harnessing the benefits of the G.I. Bill, because labor and income were immediately needed at home.

The GI Bill is often regarded as a significant reason why a middle class developed in the 50's and 60's in the US. More quickly than other nations. The vastly different access to the GI Bill is also a reason a large black middle class did not develop at the same pace as the white middle class did.
RayJay said this:
I also think our history of slavery, reconstruction, and race relations contribute to limit our social mobility. There's some racism, and some prejudice, but of more importance, I think there are cultural misunderstandings that exacerbate our issues

I wonder, is the unequal access to the GI Bill benefits in the 20 years after WWII "some racism" or a "cultural misunderstanding"?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 17 Aug 2018, 8:18 am

"Lipstick on a pig"...

Are you saying the GI bill is a "Pig" Or was back then? I stated it was not what it was supposed to be when it was starting.

Has the GI Bill benefited African Americans?

You need to get some happiness and not look so negatively at everything. I pity your attitude.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Aug 2018, 8:24 am

bbauska wrote:Are you channeling your inner Cuomo? :grin:


As I've said many, many times, I hate that guy; he's a misanthrope that embodies the worst of northeast corruption and lack of accountability.

But a broken clock is right twice a day .. .
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Aug 2018, 7:40 am

bbauska
Are you saying the GI bill is a "Pig" Or was back then?


The pig is the racist policies that kept black GIs from equal treatment.
The lipstick is your notion that because some black soldiers did benefit, the racist policies weren't all that bad.

Equal. Or less than equal. How do you want to be treated?

bbauska
You need to get some happiness and not look so negatively at everything. I pity your attitude

I'm not looking at the GI Bill "negatively". I'm looking at the racism negatively.Or, rather honestly.
Pretending that "things weren't that bad", or "things aren't that bad" seems to me to be a failure to empathize with those affected.
If you were a Black GI returning from Europe, and the State of Georgia denied you the benefits due to everyone else who served ... would you be okay with that?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Aug 2018, 10:40 am

Ricky:
This is total BS. There is no evidence on offer from you that geographic diversity should be "normalized". Whatever you mean by that term.
The entire populace of a country is measured over generations... regardless of where they live, or not. Their income or their socioeconomic status is recorded...
If indeed being in an urban environment or a rural environment had some impact on this, please offer some evidence. Don't just throw crap at the wall.


It's more which part of the country than urban vs. rural. The median household income in Mass. is $76,000 whereas the median household income in Miss. is $41,754. If you live in Miss and don't want to move away from your family, social mobility is tougher. Since education is primarily a state function in the US, and we've generally agreed that education is one of the most important ingredients for social mobility, it is relevant.

Per Wikipedia:
Gini index has a downward-bias for small populations.[59] Counties or states or countries with small populations and less diverse economies will tend to report small Gini coefficients. For economically diverse large population groups, a much higher coefficient is expected than for each of its regions. Taking world economy as one, and income distribution for all human beings, for example, different scholars estimate global Gini index to range between 0.61 and 0.68.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Aug 2018, 10:42 am

Ricky:
rayjay
Perhaps you should read the studies that you link?

I have. If you have, and find something in them about "normalizing" for geographic diversity ... then please quote and explain.
If you can't then admit it.


I thought I saw it in one of the tables in one of your links, but I cannot find it now.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Aug 2018, 12:11 pm

rickyp wrote:bbauska
Are you saying the GI bill is a "Pig" Or was back then?


The pig is the racist policies that kept black GIs from equal treatment.
The lipstick is your notion that because some black soldiers did benefit, the racist policies weren't all that bad.


Please note the present tense usage on the word "is", not the past tense usage of the word "was".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Aug 2018, 1:50 pm

Freeman:
The situation is more complicated. The data indicates that 10% of kids from the lowest income quartile earn a bachelors degree by the time they are 24, 13% in the 2nd lowest income quartile, and 23% in the third lowest quartile as opposed to 54% in the highest income quartile. Obtaining a college degree is the best chance at social mobility so these data reflect a lack of social mobility.



Thanks for the well thought out posts. I totally agree that it is complicated.

I think you are misinterpreting these stats. They suggest that only 25% of Americans over 24 have bachelor degrees, but 35% of Americans aged 25 to 29 have bachelor degrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education ... ted_States