<p>Is higher education actually making inequality worse?
<a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/college-the-great-unleveler/">http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/college-the-great-unleveler/</a></p>
<p>The author is correct that the rapidly rising cost of college relative to incomes makes college less accessible for those born into low income families. But the author neglects to point out that inequality and poor quality at the K-12 level schools is another factor which limits the accessibility for many of those born into low income families who have only access to low quality public K-12 schools and cannot afford private schools (not all of which are good quality either).</p>
<p>Those who go to college tend to end up in professional positions which pay better. They move to areas they can afford because they can and want their children to have a safe environment. Their children see their example and are better educated because they have parents who care and have the means, desire and education to help their children take advantage of the opportunities given. They go off to college well educated and get professional jobs and the cycle continues. </p>
<p>On the other end of the spectrum are families who didn’t go to college and frankly never cared to. They have probably found that their jobs are either being eliminated or that they are making less money than they used to. They stay put as the area around them erodes.They never studied past high school (if even that
) and are unable to help their kids with school work and don’t really encourage their kids. No one reads much and while the children are constantly told by others that college is necessary, it’s a foreign concept to mom and dad. The children get low to middle of the road grades and if they do go on to college they aren’t really prepared for the rigors of a college education. They drop out after a year most likely several thousand dollars in debt and disallusioned. The cycle continues. </p>
<p>I know I generalize with these examples, however, I see this dichotomy quite often. Question: is it college that is the unleveler? On a occasion you’ll see a kid who gets it. They know they need to become educated and take it upon themselves because no one immediately around them is going to encourage them. They graduate get a professional job and likely move to a better neighborhood where their children will have better opportunities. </p>
<p>I don’t agree that college is the great unleveler. College is a significant pathway for the lower classes to move into the middle class and beyond. My own life illustrates that: grandparents blue collar, high school grads (actually one grandparent only officially completed the 3rd grade, but one of that smartest men I knew.). Next generation, one or more children entered college and earned degrees and worked in solid middle class jobs. Third generation (mine) one or more children went beyond earning BA/BS, entered professional level, high income jobs. Fourth generation, all of the children are attending college, many with plans to continue at least through masters, perhaps even further. What made the difference in each generation was not the amount of money available, but a common belief that education is always the key to opportunity. Most in each generation rid not live in the best school districts, but they went to school everyday, behaved, showed respect, did homework, came back to class prepared. They went to the library frequently, and had books at home (mostly bought used) and read a lot. Education was important and sacrifices were made to get the best education possible.</p>
<p>What the huge influx of millions, even billions, of dollars via student financial aid has revealed is that too many students are not coming from homes where education is valued, and not coming from schools that teach the basics. They are not prepared to go to college, and more resources at the college level are having to be devoted to remedial learning. We can throw even more money into student aid and Pell Grants and subsidized loans, etc, and still that won’t resolve the problem of unprepared students or students who would be better off pursuing vocational training and getting out into the workforce ( and there are plenty of kids from upper income homes, too, who are not prepared for college or not suited for college.)</p>
<p>Within those lower income communities, with few, if any, parents with college degrees, nothing will change unless those parents push education and show as much respect towards education as they do other endeavors. If parents don’t care, their kids won’t care. Then, when some of those kids decide to care as they graduate from high school, and look to get into college, and take all of that federal aid, they arrive on campus to discover that they are totally unprepared to succeed. What is a great unleveler is debt, especially debt taken on for college when that student fails to stay in college and complete that degree. Debt is the great unleveler.</p>
<p>Really poor and really disadvantaged students succeed in school and go on to college despite the odds, but these are usually immigrant families.</p>
<p>Chesterton, did you read the article? Because the point is not that we need to “throw even more money into aid,” but that we have chosen to allow the money we spend on aid to line the pockets of for-profit corporations, rather than supporting low-cost, high-value state schools. It is a matter of money available: it used to be possible to work one’s way through college, by going to a state school. It is no longer financially possible to do that, however motivated the student; it costs more to attend state school than a student can earn in a year. This makes college effectively out of reach, and is a choice our country has made, to make education harder to achieve. It is easy to claim that students are unprepared, but that is an entirely separate issue. If we, as a society, value education, if we preach the notion that everyone should have a chance, then we need to revamp the system of educational funding, starting by eliminating for-profit support, and then reinstating decent funding for state schools. </p>
<p>@marysidney … I am so tempted to be sarcastic here, but I won’t give in. Of course, I read the article. Actually read it at its original source early today and so I recognized the thread title when I logged in here. I love CC but I don’t rely on it for everything. I did not realize that one could not bring up other pertinent issues.</p>
<p>I wholeheartedly disagree with your statements that (1) it is no longer financially possible to work one’s way through a state college, and (2) that eliminating for-profit schools is the solution. </p>
<p>Students can work their way through school these days, but they may have to live at home (as many of my California friends did, even when tuition was much less than it is today.) I live in Florida now, and tuition and fees at UCF is just over $6000 a year. If a student did not do well enough in high school to qualify for free state money via Bright Futures, then $6000 a year, while living at home (assuming the parents are helping by providing room and board) is still just $500 a month over the course of a year. A part-time, 15 hour a week, minimum wage job would bring in that $500 a month. But many students in Florida get Bright Futures, which cuts that tuition and fees by around half, so then tuition and fees are now around $3000 a year. By living at home and working 15 hours a week at a minimum wage job, a student could not make it through school? Ok, fine. So let that student take out some federal loans to augment that part-time job. That gives a little cushion, though not preferable, but still, there it is - the easiest to get, cheapest financing they will ever be able to get. That student still cannot make it happen?</p>
<p>What about preparing to go to college and saving while in high school? I worked 28 hours a week during the school year and full-time during the summers. I graduated at the top and still edited the yearbook and ran the student council. I worked part time during college, and budgeted about $5-10 a week for so spending money. I was dedicated to the starving student lifestyle. More students these days would do well to live that starving student lifestyle, instead of expecting resort-style dorms and spending their parents’ money on weekly entertainment. My husband worked full-time graveyard shifts and paid his way through school. It was hard, no doubt about that, but still doable. I know students who do similar things today, working their way through schools they can afford.</p>
<p>Yes, many states have state university tuitions that are absurd and rival private schools. Why do those state taxpayers put up with that? For all of its faults, California legislators decades ago, with the support of residents, made a promise to its students that college would be possible. Even with the tuition increases, students can earn college credit via free dual enrollment, cheap community colleges, and comparatively inexpensive state schools. Same here in Florida.</p>
<p>Far more students enroll at the public universities and take the Pell grant money, and the state grants, and federal loans than enroll in for-profit schools. It is somewhat ridiculous to me to claim that those public schools are not for-profit themselves. Most don’t act like nonprofits given they way they blow through millions of dollars on things that are not essential to education.</p>
<p>For-profit schools are an avenue best suited to students who missed going to college right after high school had to learn some life lessons, and are now serious and ready to get training. They need the flexibility of those schools that cater to those non-traditional students. I have known many people who chose schools like ITT, and earned their degrees, and got great jobs in industry. Would I have recommended they try a less expensive route? Sure, but many similar programs at community colleges or universities don’t handle adult students as well (with their particular needs) and the programs often take longer to complete. For-profit schools need to be judged on job placement and any for-profit school that cannot get students placed in internships and jobs need to be held accountable because of the extra expense. That said, there is a role for these schools. The students who fail at those schools likely would gave failed no matter where they went and where they took their taxpayer-subsidized grants and loans.</p>
<p>The real problem is too many unqualified, unprepared college students who take on very little of the actual costs ( because either their parents are paying the bill or the taxpayers or combo of both) and, because as a society, we are a financially-illiterate one, they have no clue about the consequences of taking that money and then not doing something with it, like graduating with that college degree.</p>
<p>I have met too many people in the course of my own college years, or as I worked on college campuses, who really were not in college to get that degree, but had figured out how to finance their lives thanks to free money and low cost loans. That is something that has to change. Students like these interfere with other students’ abilities to get into needed classes and graduate on time. So these perpetual students need to be kicked out of the system. That would save some money.</p>
<p>Students need as many options as possible, but they also need to be told the truth. If students only qualify to take remedial English and math, then they need to attend community college and then transfer (or figure out that other options are better fits for them than college.)</p>
<p>I would like to see employers return to offering training to new hires rather than expecting every new hire to have earned a college degree (those employers benefit without sharing in the cost and many of those new hires don’t need college degrees to learn their jobs.)</p>
<p>Uh oh, I think I am bringing up things not mentioned in the article under discussion. Sorry.</p>
<p>WSJ has an article today that suggests that a lot of the debt being assumed for college is actually being redirected into refinancing overdue bills and paying day-to-day living expenses. Its a surprise to me, but fits with a lot of the social spending that we allow. If the article is representative, changes need to happen. </p>
<p><a href=“Student Loans Entice Borrowers More for Cash Than a Degree - WSJ”>Student Loans Entice Borrowers More for Cash Than a Degree - WSJ;
<p>“The students who fail at those schools likely would gave failed no matter where they went and where they took their taxpayer-subsidized grants and loans.”</p>
<p>If that’s true, then it’s much better that they fail at lower-cost institutions. But part of the reason that doesn’t happen is that the lower-cost institutions, which don’t make much money from each student, and which are answerable to taxpayers for student success rates, are incentivized to enroll only the number of students they can handle and place them in programs where they are likely to succeed. The for-profits have the opposite motive, and behave exactly as their incentives would predict: enroll everybody in everything you can convince them to buy, charge as much as you can, and let the taxpayers deal with the bill.</p>