narrowing the class divide

[alice144]

Infjs, I am bored. Please read the article, and tell me whether the author is right.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/opinion/reforms-for-the-new-upper-class.html?_r=1

 

[Sriracha]

So-so

Basically the author is coming up with a solution on how to give the disadvantaged more leverage to make it to the top by "dumbing down the system." I have a serious problem with this. Those of us who came from not so privileged backgrounds went to a community college prior to jumping into a university and transferred credits. No brainer. Most community colleges do not require an SAT for entry, and it will not set the person back in their education longevity if they do their homework (regarding transferable credits/classes.) I was not required to take an SAT when I transferred to a university (only assessment/placement tests.)

Parents of these "rich, smart" children are the ones who are forking the bill for the college education. Some take out second mortgages. The author should not assume that each "rich, smart" child goes to college without incurring debt. Most parents hand them the bill on the loans they had been paying when they are finally settled into life. "Congratulations on your graduation! Here's your $60,000 tab." Which brings me to another point, the first payment of most college loans do not begin until several years. You don't have to go to an "elite" college in order to do something you find fulfilling.

The unpaid internship is just a crapshoot most students have to deal with. At least if it is during the summer, they can work at a diner at night or on weekends. Most of know us that Ramen Noodles are one of the main meals for poor students.

Another step would replace ethnic affirmative action with socioeconomic affirmative action. This is a no-brainer. It is absurd, in 2012, to give the son of a black lawyer an advantage in college admissions but not do the same for the son of a white plumber.

I think this could actually work, but it also opens a lot of windows for fraud too. At the same time I think you would see universities having a problem with student retention.

Finally, we should prick the B.A. bubble. The bachelor’s degree has become a driver of class divisions at the same moment in history when it has become educationally meaningless. We don’t need legislation to fix this problem, just an energetic public interest law firm that challenges the constitutionality of the degree as a job requirement.

Most people I know work in a field outside of their college degree. It is the mere fact that they had the discipline to go to college and work hard in order to obtain that degree. I agree that that a job candidate having more knowledge and skills for some job SHOULD be the qualified candidate over someone yielding a degree in Basket-Weaving.


White men are getting uncomfortable in their position now. They should be. At the same time I can see where the author understands that our country have gone from a "racial divide" to a "socioeconomic/individual divide."

 

[Nixie]

A big part of me says that socioeconomic affirmative action will still be heavily racially defined. There are third world countries that have better earning/living statistics than a lot of Native American Reservations in this US.

Education IS NOT job training--that is ITT Tech and those type of schools. However the junior/senior years are when a student does more of an intense concentration of learning in a specific field. It is ridiculous to think that someone with a chem degree will do better in a wall street job than someone with a business degree--hence degrees have meaning in the job market when it comes to education--notice I'm not talking about experience.

I will say that when things become economically difficult and the masses become restless there is a backlash toward intellectuals. Additionally if gov't intervention is needed to quell the masses, they typically persecute those seen as intellectuals by oh..killing them. So I won't be suprised when more and more articles talk about how useless education is.....who needs a population that has been taught to think and be educated?

 

[alice144]

Wow, interesting responses.

I will say that when things become economically difficult and the masses become restless there is a backlash toward intellectuals.

What?! Who are 'the masses' then, and how are you different from the rest of them? That statement reeks of elitism.

I don't think anyone has a bone to pick with the intellectuals -- we need them more than ever. I think people take issue with the 'ensconcement' of the upper class; with the price of college increasing astronomically and the BA becoming more and more worthless in the marketplace, the only people who can rationally take on the risk of investing in a college education are trust fund kids and the like.

Parents of these "rich, smart" children are the ones who are forking the bill for the college education. Some take out second mortgages.

That's not what the author means by 'rich'. 'Rich' means that you have enough liquid assets to not have to take out a second mortgage. There are quite a few people who fall into this category, believe it or not.

Basically the author is coming up with a solution on how to give the disadvantaged more leverage to make it to the top by "dumbing down the system." I have a serious problem with this. Those of us who came from not so privileged backgrounds went to a community college prior to jumping into a university and transferred credits.

I'm not sure where you're going with this one... The SAT is basically an IQ test, although rich kids are typically able to boost their scores 100 points or so by hiring a private tutor. It's more to do with the perception of the thing rather than actual fact. Poor, smart kids will probably actually benefit from showing colleges their SAT scores as they won't have the resources to participate in a million bajillion extracurriculars as their more privileged counterparts. It's also harder to make good grades too when your home evironment isn't as supportive; I can attest to this one drawing from my own experience.

 

[this is only temporary]

Infjs, I am bored. Please read the article, and tell me whether the author is right.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/opinion/reforms-for-the-new-upper-class.html?_r=1

I am also bored, and I think the author makes some good points.

Here's another article on the subject which I like:

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/13/158694543/a-new-kind-of-segregation-income-segregation

The sociologist Stephen Klineberg makes the same point, he says that particularly in larger cities, income segregation is easier and more definitive than it used to be.

From my personal point of view, looking around me, I see much much much more interracial marriage, more tolerance and far more diversity by race, in addition to more different races living and working together, than there ever ever EVER was 40 years ago. Which is not to say racism doesn't exist; it does, but it is less of a defining factor than it used to be. I think socioeconomic/income factors do define us more today than race alone. Generally speaking.

A couple of quotes:

Well, because all three of those cities are big, spread out cities in this gigantic state that is the size of all of France, and Houston covers a geographical space of over 10,000 square miles. That's larger than the state of Massachusetts and so we live in very separated worlds, and it's much easier in cities like Houston and San Antonio and Dallas to live in those gated communities, those master planned communities that bring people together all of the same socio-economic status.

That's true enough, wouldn't you say? True in places like California as well. Geographical spread creates the opportunity to have large areas where only wealthier people live. You can't have this in a very densly populated city, really, not as much.

Oh, tremendous consequences of the isolation of the poor in places where there are only other poor people with very few connections to the job opportunities that are out there, to the knowledge. We know that there are several forms of capital. Right? There's human capital, which is education. There's financial capital and there's, above all, social capital. Who do you know? Who are you connected with? Who can you go to for advice? Who will know about jobs that are opening and help connect you to those jobs?

And so the isolation of the poor creates two things. Number one is it isolates the poor in ways that make it much more difficult for them to work their way out of poverty and it isolates the rich so that they live in worlds where they have no clue as to the kind of challenges that people are facing.

 

[alice144]

Ugh, yes, this is why I left Houston. Exactly why I left Houston. If people stay in their so-called 'PLUs', they don't have to confront the rather large and disturbing socioeconomic problems facing us today.

quote:
and so we live in very separated worlds, and it's much easier in cities like Houston and San Antonio and Dallas to live in those gated communities, those master planned communities that bring people together all of the same socio-economic status.

Blech.

Nice article, btw.

Geographical spread creates the opportunity to have large areas where only wealthier people live.

Also makes it hard to save money when you have to spend all your extra income on car maintenance. The old-style cities with public transportation seem more egalitarian, somehow.

From my personal point of view, looking around me, I see much much much more interracial marriage, more tolerance and far more diversity by race, in addition to more different races living and working together, than there ever ever EVER was 40 years ago.

True, although it depends on where you go. In Boston, the black people couldn't figure out why I was being so friendly to them. People treat others differently in different parts of the country. But, yes, you are right.

 

[the]

Taken as a whole I disgreed with the who article, but when I tried to go point by point I found myself agreeing more and more.

I hate this article.